A Discussion on US Labor History

It can be argued that the United States had the bloodiest and most violent labor history of nay industrial nation in the world.  Harsh working conditions and poor wages led union workers to revolt.  This, along with the employers quick and violent action and the governments lack of participation in wage and peace keeping, left the late 1800s a bloody time in American history.

The main reasons, for example, railroad workers revolting in the late 1800s was because of poor wages, but Laos because of union cohesion.  In most of the riots.   That occured at the industries, if the employer would have given proper recognition to the union status, violence may not have broken out.  The attempts to quell or destroy the people from gathering also had violent effects in the revolt.  Also, had there not been influential mob leaders antagonizing the rioters to continue, many of the riots may have disbursed without casualties.  In the strikes and riots of the late 1800s, sit-ins would be the result of the employer not budging when demands for better wages by the union were asked and not recieved.  One answer the employers deduced is to employ outside non-union help and have them formally sign a contract staying the employee would not join a union.  The hiring of non-union personnel enrages the peaceful petitioners into all out mob-destruction, usually ending with the calling of state and federal troops, and dead and wounded with thousands in property damage.

Along with the poor wages, the mistreatment of union workers, while employed, was another factor in the revolts.  The harsh working conditions only fueled the unions to show hatred for their employers.  The quick firing of employees, too, led to angry mobs forming.  Employers quickly sending for federal aid in peaceful sit-ins turned them violent quickly, only after troops arrived and harassed those on strike.  Also, the breaking of contracts with unions because of an expiration date excuse on the unions’s contract was a way around paying workers in Homestead, PA, for example, which resulted in a bloody massacre.

The governments stance in the strikes was to let the state handle its own affairs unless troops were attacked, which would result in the governor or chief of police asking for federal troops.  The involvement of soldiers led to strikes becoming more violent, but also led to those on strike becoming disorganized, weak, and quelled into giving up on the strike.  President Clevland, for example, stated it was not a federal right to deal with matters of judicial procedure, yet government troops were used frequently.

The riots of 1877 were violent and bloody, and always led to the union being dispatched and the government and private employers winning the day.  It is no wonder why the unions revolted.  With no compromising on the employers side and little recognition to the unions, the disrespect led to chaos.  The employers were taking away the only way some people knew how to make a life.  The terrible wages for the work asked is another reason for their revolts.  Are the wealthy really that vague and blind that blood is the same as a dollar sign?  With the lack of government support the unions had no rights in the private sector, besides what the owner decided, and since they fell under state law, the government could intervene and then wash its hands of the matter and claim it intervened in a private matter, who were not/could not be brought up on legal charges.

So who really ran the government when the soldiers would go to the call of private corporations whenever they needed, and for whatever reason?

Have things changed since our government is still run by private corporations?

Are we ever going to change our understanding of value and retake the standard of wages, decided by the people instead of those who want to oppress the people into slave labor.

Just because we add a zero do we have more? Or are the zeros created by some other entity that does not have yours or societies interests in mind, a profit-driven mentality that reigns?  Good questions for research and introspection.

Advertisements

Opposition to the Dropping of the Atomic Bombs

“From what we read in the general media, it seems like almost everyone felt the atomic bombings of Japan were necessary.  Aren’t the people who disagree with those actions just trying to find fault with America?” (Hiroshima Who Didn’t Agree with the Atomic Bombing, 1945).

How is someone supposed to argue against this statement, against the collective acceptance of a nation?  How is someone supposed to change the mind of a madman with their hand on the button?  By looking at the words and deeds of those involved with the project and decision, other possible alternate solutions to ending World War II can be formulated.

Lone Rakassan standing after atomic blast
Lone Rakassan standing after atomic blast

Dwight Eisenhower stated in a 1945 edition of Newsweek that he, the General of the European Theater and later President of the United States, “gave misgivings on why he believed the bombs should not be dropped.”  First was because it was his belief that Japan was already beaten an it was completely unnecessary.  Secondly, because America should avoid shocking the world’s opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives (Mandate for Change, p380).

Also, Chief of Staff to President Franklin Roosevelt, Admiral Leahy, stated that this barbarous weapon should not have been used and that he was not taught to make was in that fashion (I Was There, p441).  Leahy also stated that the Japanese were looking for a way out, a way to keep their honor.

Even one of the designers of the bomb stressed not to make it.  After Germany surrendered, Leo Szilard tried to meet with President Harry Truman, but he sent Secretary of State to be, James Byrnes, instead.  Also, Szilard urged the bomb not being used, stating in the Franck Report, “We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable.  If the U.S. Would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.”  Another interesting comment in the Franck Report states, “It will be very difficult to persuade the world, as indiscriminate as the rocket bomb (German blockbuster) and a thousand times more destructive is, to be trusted in its proclaimed desire of having such weapons abolished by international agreement” (Political and Social Problems, Manhattan Engineer District Records, Harrison-Bundy Files, Folder # 76, National Archives).

Fat Man
Fat Man

The luxury of hindsight cannot stop the bombs from being dropped, atomic or otherwise, but a look at the alternate solutions in the minds of the time is an interesting addition on why President Truman made his decision.   The first solution came from General Spaatz, in charge of Air Force operations in the Pacific, who came up with announcing to the Japanese that no ground assault would take place and that constant bombing would continue on military sites until Japanese surrender (Herbert Feis Papers).

Ralph Bard, a member of the Interim Committee, gave a couple of alternatives in a memorandum to President Truman; 1) wait for Russia to put pressure on Japan by occupying Manchuria and furthering the blockade of materials to mainland Japan, 2) A possible notice of 2-3 days so minimal human life would be taken (Harrison-Bundy Files), 3) Douglas McArthur states to this biographer that he does not understand why America asked for Japan’s unconditional surrender when Japan already agreed to surrender if the continuation of the imperial reign could continue.  America declined the offer, dropped the bombs, then let the continuation of the imperial reign anyway (William Manchester).

The aftermath includes many interesting perspectives because the global stage is set to think, “OK, what now?!?!”  What better to start off the after math than the pilots own words wondering what they just did.  “A bright light filled the plane,” wrote Col. Paul Tibbets, pilot of the Enola Gay, “We turned back to look at Hiroshima.  The city was hidden by that awful cloud, boiling up, mushrooming.  For a moment, no one spoke.  Then everyone was talking.” “Look, Look, Look at that,” said the co-pilot, Robert Lewis. Lewis said he could taste atomic fission and it tasted like lead.  THen he turned away to write in his journal, “My God, he asked himself, What have we just done?” (Special Report, “Hiroshima: August 6, 1945”).

Industrial Japan after the dropping of the atomic bomb
Industrial Japan after the dropping of the atomic bomb

General Eisenhower also comment end as well in a 1963 Newsweek interview, “The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing” (Ike on Ike).

But Szilard may have said it best, in 1945, “We might start an arms race between America and Russia which might end with the destruction of both countries” (Leo Szilard, His Version of the Facts, p184).

With the conclusion of the aftermath, many students, soldiers, and Koreans working in factories, died, an estimated 200,000 in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nagasaki, lower numbers because the terrain dispersed the explosion.  But how many does it take to be an acceptable loss? An acceptable win?

Enola Gay banks away after dropping atomic bomb on Hiroshima
Enola Gay banks away after dropping atomic bomb on Hiroshima

There seems to be a puzzle in determining if there could have been another way than dropping a bomb that destroyed an entire city, started an arms race, killed thousands, and weaponized the future.  The greater good occurred, well, for whom?  The victor places their view in more accurate terms, even thinks their actions were provoked and necessary.  In reading the words of some of the people in charge of the decision to drop the atomic bombs, one can notice that most supported an alternate solution to the bombing, and only backed the dropping due to political and administrative pressures.

Hindsight is a comfort in a situation like this.

One final unanswerable, but debatable, question: Why didn’t they blow up an atomic bomb off the coast so the Japanese could witness they destructive power, a prior notification of wanton destruction, instead of on a population center?   Perhaps history will tell.

The Art of Slaughter; a Different Way to Understand War

In order to understand war, a brief history of individuals that shaped the way the art of slaughter is conducted must be mentioned.

War has, arguably, always been a part of human existence (Life feeds on life), and one of the oldest military documents in written history (compared to religious or civil), is Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War.”  Written in 500 B.C., it may come after Chinese and Egyptian cultures, but this document is one of the oldest devoted to military concepts.  Sun Tzu says, “The art of war is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account when seeking to determine the conditions of obtaining the field” (Roots of Strategy).  The main factors include:

  1. Moral Law: people in complete accord with their ruler, follow regardless of their lives.
  2. Heaven: night and day, cold and heat, time and seasons
  3. Earth: distances, security, open ground, passages
  4. Commander: virtues of wisdom, sincerity, benevolence, courage, and strictness
  5. Method and Discipline: putting army in proper subdivisions, promotions, maintenance of roads for supply travel, and military expenses
  • Note: The use of Fire must be mentioned, though it is not a constant, it is a factor that must be taken into account

Another man, who is regarded as one of the greatest Western military minds, revolutionized the way warfare was fought, even to date.  Napoleon Bonaparte fought more battles than Alexander of Macedonia, the Carthaginian conqueror Hannibal, and the thrice denied emperor of Rome Julius Caesar, combined.  Napoleon redefined tactics by:

  1. Creating a standstill on the battle line after approaching in columns instead of  approaching on row.
  2.  Quickly move small guerilla forces to the flanks of the enemy and engage, creating the illusion the flanks were being overrun.
  3. Bombard the standstill on the battle line with precise artillery strikes, separating the line in two and causing confusion in the ranks (as well as delaying reinforcements from countering).
  4. Send in infantry en masse immediately after artillery barrage to close, engage, and destroy the enemy.
  5. Troops would feed off the land going to the battlefield, instead of having a long supply train that is a logistical nightmare and can be attacked.

Sun Tzu was one of the first to write a military document that would be carried and revamped in time, and Napoleon revolutionized the actual way combat is fought, but the first to engage in war, that history tells us, was Lucifer, the Lightbringer/Morningstar.

In John Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” he portrays Lucifer as a charismatic leader who rallies a third of the Angels to storm the Gates of Heaven and usher in a new era of peace.  Lines are drawn in the sand and sides were forced to be made, as in every war, but ultimately Lucifer was crushed by Michael and his archangels, by which Hell is created to smite many of thefallen angels.  Milton was the first Orthodox Christian to portray Lucifer as charismatic, which caused a major uproar in 1667 when the Catholic Church’s power and influence was near global.  Milton’s book portrayed that Lucifer may not have been completely wrong in his actions, hence, the phrase was coined, “It is better to rule in hell than serve in Heaven.”

Lucifer, the Lightbringer, has a similar story in most ancient cultures.  It is the tempter that tempts with forbidden “something,” usually of which is knowledge.  In Greek mythos it is Hephaestus that brings fire to man and is struck down.  In other cultures, Norse and Egyptian, knowledge is only gained through sacrifice.  And war is a terrible outcome of heated argument between huge egos, historically over either who is right or the Other.

Herbert Hoover said, “Older men declare wars, but it is the youth that must fight and die,” John Wayne said, “Courage is being scarred to death, but saddling up anyway,” and Robert E. Lee noticed, “It is well that war is terrible, or we get too fond of it.”

Philosophy, or the love of wisdom, was introduced to the Western world through Pythagoras, and continued on by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus, the Sophists and Pluralists, and the Milesian School.   It can be argued that true genius in the art of combat must understand all aspects of combat, which without peace there can be no war, without love there can be no hate, without yin there is no yang.   As quoted by Ender’s Wiggins in “Ender’s Game,” written by Orson Scott Card, “In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then, in that very moment I also love him. I think it’s impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves. And then, in that very moment when I love them…. I destroy them.”

Bruce Lee is an example of a philosophical warrior.  In “The Warrior Within,” Lee explains how you can used a form of self-defense to better understand and flourish your life.  Lee’s stories and ideas have had profound meaning in ways someone could understand the philosophy of combat.

“The phenomenon of the moon in the water is likened to human experience.  The water is the subject and the moon is the object.  When there is no water, there is no moon in the water, and likewise when there is no moon.  But when the moon rises the water does not wait to receive its image, and when even the tiniest drop of water is poured out the moon does not wait to cast its reflection.  The moon does not intend to cast its reflection and the water does not reflect its image on purpose.  The event is caused as much by the water as by the moon, and as the water manifests the brightness of the moon, the moon manifests the clarity of the water.  Everything does have a real relationship.” (The Warrior Within)

Lee’s profound philosophies also include:

  • Gung Fu is practiced not only for health and self-protection but for cultivation of the mind as well.  Gung Fu was used by priests and Chinese monks as a philosophy, or way of thinking, in which the ideals of giving WITH adversity, to bend slightly and then spring up stronger than before.  The qualities of patience and profiting from one’s mistakes are part of the discipline of Gung Fu.
  • It was obvious to the master from the start of the conversation that the professor was not so much interested in learning about Zen as he was in impressing the master with his own opinion and knowledge.  As the Zen teacher explained, the learned man would frequently interrupt with remarks.  Finally, The teacher stopped talking and began to serve tea.  He poured the cup full, then kept pouring until the cup overfilled.  “Enough,” cried the learned man, once more interrupting.  “The cup is overfill,, no more will go in.”  “Indeed, I see,” answered the teacher, “like this cup, you are full of your own opinions and speculations.  If you do not first empty your cup, how can you taste of my tea?” (The Warrior Within)

On the extreme side of understanding peace in order to understand war, Dag Hammerskjold, a two-time Nobel peace prize winner for his writings, lived through two world wars and wrote many contemplations about war and why we as a society fight.  One of his writings goes:

  • “You told yourself you would accept the decision of fate.  But you lost your nerve when you discovered what this would require of you; then you realized how attached you still were to the world which has made you what you were, but which you would now have to leave behind.  It felt like an amputation, a “little death,” and you even listened to those voices which insinuated that you were deceiving yourself out of ambition.  You will have to give up everything.  Why, then, weep at this little death?  Take it to you quickly, with a smile die this death, and become free to go further, one with your task, whole in your duty of the moment.” (Markings)

Now that there is a broad spectrum of how to think about the art of war (mind you, John Stuart Mills Harm Principle, coming soon, is an in-depth conversation all by itself), can an argument be made that we have progressed through ages of how to slaughter and/or control another better.  And is that all war is, the struggle against being either slaughtered or controlled?  What ever the reason, as well, if force necessarily needs to be used, then the Fourth Estates shaping of the information needs to be as objective as possible.  And the desire for this is for another discussion another day, Peace, Be Kind, and Get Knowned.

De Omnibus Dubitandum

For this blog I found it only fair to myself to listen to words whispered in my ears for many years now.  These words have pried open my mind to countless possibilities that await me in the form of the future, but the words have begun an endless debate in my mind, which I accept and dread.  This blog will analyze views by Mikhail Bakunin and Freidreich Neitzsche (La Gaya Scienza), followed by my own interpretation of the material.

The reason I chose this material is because of the possibility they may be right, mixed with the possibility they have no idea what they are talking about; yet, the allure is too addictive.  So without delay: Why does humanity need God?

Bakunin is straightforward in God and State of his opinion of God and His place in humanity.  Bakunin gives Jehovah characteristics such as “most jealous, most vain, most ferocious, most unjust, most bloodthirsty, most despotic, and most hostile.” (P.2) “Our first ancestors, our Adams and our Eve’s, we’re not gorillas with two precious faculties–the power to think and the desire to rebel.” (P1-2)

To further this line of thinking Bakunin then desires to know why did God create man, if Christian dogma is true? This is where his version of the myth of original sin and human humans being the loyal slaves of God is introduced.  Bakunin has Satan being the great emancipator of the human race by “stamping the seal of Liberty and humanity upon our brows.” (P2) Yet, with God’s all fore sightedness, a divine faculty, God allowed the transgression to happen and then smote humanity for doing what was “forbidden.”

Bakunin claims humanity does not need God for multiple reasons.  It can begin and be seen in the “manner religions debase and corrupt the people.” (P14). Religions are cruel by destroying human reason, the “principal instrument of human emancipation, and reduce them to imbecility, the essential condition for their slavery.” (P14) The religious system is based on the idea of sacrifice, but no man can truly answer if there is a heaven of not.  Bakunin then asks, why not make this life as close to heaven as possible, then, and concludes that the answer to God and everything associated with God is, “if God existed, only in one way could He serve humanity, by ceasing to exist.” (P15)

Fredrich Nietzsche wrote a parable entitled The Madman where the madman ascertains that humanity has killed God.  The madman cries out in a marketplace that he seeks God, when no one answers he states, “Because we have killed him, you and I.”  This is followed by the multiple questions:

How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What are we doing when we unchained this Earth from its Sun? Which way is it moving now? Are we moving? Away from all Suns? Are we not plunging constantly? And backward, sideways, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying through an infinite nothing?Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morn? Do we not hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? (Chap. 125)

Now, as powerful as these questions and this verse may be, the answers to these questions is not what is necessarily important.  It is the fact that humanity has achieved the ability to question by ceasing to believe in a supra-sensible world as the true norm of our moral conduct.

“I have come too early, or too late, and God is dead and we have killed Him.” the madman continues.  This hints that God is not there and not coming; but humanity is claimed to have done this by accepting science as a possibility for achieving God-hood.  Without a healthy medium.

What are the options one can take to live a moral life with no higher standard to pit yourself against or to use as a support structure?  Neitzsche states that the acceptance of this can lead to despair, suicide, Nihilism (values do not exist but are invented), and Satanism (belief in the love of oneself/the individual). That you are a Star or a God, and that you can do as you want.

Another stance is whether there is a new justification and creativity that humanity can progress and achieve some “thing” greater the the individual could achieve alone.  That by giving up on God is the way humanity can progress, but together and not as an individual.

It is difficult to determine if people need religion to guide them, some claim they do.  Those that do not need a dogma, man, thing, or external idea to tell them what to believe or guide their moral compass could be in a more balanced or narcissistic state than others who are told how to believe.  But that is not for me to conclude.

It is also difficult to understand that humanity has an emptiness in its existence.  An emptiness so great that through our own imagination conjoured an imaginary friend to fill this emptiness, to quell the fears of the unknown, and creator of a moral compass and ethical reasoning.

Why couldn’t it be the other way around?

So is the answer to give up on everything, all knowledge of your being and go back to being like an animal, is that what the world needs to find peace, for a huge step back?  This cannot happen, because as stated by Bakunin and Neitzsche, humanity progresses.

So, with God being dead the strongest and most evil will give the most to humanity by reawakening the sense of self-compassion that society put asleep.  By pitting opinion against opinion, does humanity continue the curse of Babylon?  Even more, continues the social structure of vertical organization.

Vertical organization is solely about profit and the individual gain. As long as profit is the end-game for every strategy, the system will develop methods of control to ensure profits.  Fear has been the main control method in human history, followed by ignorance and doubt.

This is nonsense because progression has shown that it does not have to be along historical guidelines.  The Renaissance and Enlightenment periods where progressions that embraced another social system.

The use of a system that inherently incorporates stereotypes and biases, and uses violence, cohesion, and greed to progress its agenda, is a system that should be used anymore as a dominant social system, i.e. Vertical organization.

So I say with courage, De Omnbius Dubitandum, “All is to be doubted.”

As long as organizational methods are set up primarily along vertical methods, it matters not what is said, because the end-action is always profit.

The “Isms” of Political Ideologies

image

  • Anarchism: Can be grouped around socialistic or individualistic strains. Anarchists believe that the state and forms of compulsory government are harmful or unnecessary to people’s lives. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful. While being anti-statist is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of all human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.
  • Communism: Communists believe that the capitalist system is damaging to the interests of the masses, and that workers must unite and overturn it by revolutionary means. Communists also believe in the state ownership of all land, natural resources and industry. A socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the mearns of production and the absence of soctal classes, money, and the state, Communism includes a variety of schools of thought, which broadly include Martist, anarchism,(anarchist communism), and grouped political ideologies around both.
  • All these hold in common the analysis that the current order of society stems from its economic system, capitalism that in this system, there are two major social classes: the working class– who must work to survive, and who make up a majority of society – and the capitalist class– a minority who derive profit from employing the proletariat, through private ownership of the mearns of production(the physical and institutional means with which commodities are produced and distributed). Political, social and economic conlfict between these two classes will trigger a fundamental change in the economic system, and by extension a wide-ranging transformation of society. The primary element that will enable this transformation is the social ownership of the means of production.
  • Conservatism: Conservative thought is clouded by the belief that – over time – history has produced institutions and modes of government that function well, and which should be largely preserved for the future. They also believe that political change should be organic and gradual, rather than revolutionary.
  • A political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries oppose modernism and seek a return to “the way things were.” The term, historically associated with risn’t-wing politics has since been used to describe a wide range of views.
  • There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus conservatives from different parts of the world—each upholding their respective traditions—may disagree on a wide range of issues.
  • Environmentalism: The key concern is protecting and improving the condition of the natural environment. Many believe there is a need for much greater regulation of human interaction with the environment, as well as aspects of our lifestyles that are environmentally unsustainable.
  • A broad philosophy, ideology, and social movement regarding concerns for environmental protection and improvement of the health of the environmental, particularly as the measure for this health seeks to incorporate the concerns of non-human elements, environmentalism advocates the lawful preservation, restoration and/or improvement of the natural environment, and may be referred to as a movement to control pollution or protect plant and animal diversity. For this reason, concepts such as a land ethic, environmental ethic, biodiversity, ecology, and the biophilia hypothesis figure predominantly.
  • At its crux, environmentalism is an attempt to balance relations between humans and the various natural systems they depend in such a way that all the components are accorded a proper degree of sustainable ith. The exact measures and outcomes of this balance are controversial and there are many ways for environmental concerns to be expressed in practice. Environmentalism and environmental concerns are often represented by the color green, but this association has been appropriated by the marketing industries for the tactic known as greenwashing. Environmentalism is opposed by anit-environmentalism, which says that the Earth is less fragile than some environmentalists maintain, and portrays environmentalism as overreacting to the human contribution to climited change or opposing human advancement.
  • Feminism: The belief that society and the political system are patriarchal. Feminists seek to improve the political, social, and economic position of women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. Feminists typically advocate or support the rights and equality of women.
  • Feminist movements have campaigned and continue to campaign for women’s rights, including the right to vone, to hold public office, to work, to earn fair wages or equail pay, to own property, to receive education, to enter contracts, to have equal rights within marriage, and to have maternity leave. Feminists have also worked to promote bodily autonomy and integrity, and to protect women and girls from rape, sequal harassment, and domestic violence.
  • Feminist campaigns are generally considered to be one of the main forces behind major historical societal changes for women’s rights, particularly in the West, where they are near-universally credited with having achieved women’s suffrage, gender neutrality in English, reerily time rights for women (including access to contraceptives and abortion), and the right to enter into contracts and own property. Although feminist advocacy is and has been mainly focused on women’s rights, some feminists argue for the inclusion of men’s liberationwithin its aims because men are also harmed by traditional gender roles. Feminist theory, which emerged from the feminent movements of the late 1800s, aims to understand the nature of gender inequality by examining women’s social roles and lived experience. It has developed theories in a variety of disciplines in order to respond to issues such as the social construction of gender.
  • Some forms of feminism have been criticized for taking into account only white, middle-class and educated perspectives. This criticism led to the creation of ethnically specific or multicultural forms of feminism, including black feminism.
  • Liberalism: The belief in protecting the rights of the individual, to ensure their maximum freedom. There have been shifts in liberal thought, the most prominent of which was the move from classical liberalism (minimal role of state, unsecured liberties) to progressive liberalism in the early twentieth century. Progressive liberals argued that civil liberties and freedoms must be safeguarded and actively protected by the state.
  • A political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.  Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, fred markets,  civilization rights, dego ratio societies,secular governments, and international cooperation.
  • Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, when it became popular among philosophers and econnomists in the Westers world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of her editors privilege, state religion, abro lute monarchy, and the DI inte Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natrial right to life, liberty and pRoberto, while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed tradiational conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.
  • Prominent revolutionaries in the Glotions Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyranical.  Liberalism started to spread rapidly especially after the French Revolution. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, South America, and North America. In this period, the dominant ideological opponent of classical liberalism was conservative, but liberalism later survived major ideological challenges from new opponents, such as fas sim and communism. During the 20th century, liberal ideas spread even further as lI real democracies found themselves on the winning side in both world wars. In Europe and North America, the establishment of social liberalism became a key component in the expansion of the welf are state.
  • Socialism: Socialists are motivated by the desire to improve the quality of life for all members of society. They believe in a political system characterized by strong state direction in political and economic policy. Another key idea is the redistribution of resources to redress inequalities inherent in a free-market economy.
  • Socialism can be divided into both non-market and market. Non-market socialism involves the substitution of an economic mechanism based on engineering and technical criteria centered around calculation performed in-kind for factor markets, money and the acommutation of capital; therefore functioning according to different economic laws than those of capitalism. Non-market socialism aims to circumvent the inefficiencies and crises traditionally associated with the profit system. By contrast, market socialism retains the use of monetary prices and factor markets for the allocation of capital goods between socially-owned enterprises and, in some cases, the profit motive with respect to their operation. Profits would either accrue to society at large in the form of a social dividend or directly to the workforce of each firm. The feasibility and exact methods of resource allocation and calculation for a socialist system are the subjects of the socialist calculation debate.
  • The socialist political movement includes a diverse array of political philosophies that originated amid the revolutionary movements of the mid-to-late 1700s out of general concern for the social problems that were associated with capitalism. In addition to the debate over markets and planning, the varieties of socialism differ in their form of social ownership, how management is to be organized within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism. Core dichotomies associated with these concerns include reformism versus revolutionary socialism, and state socialism versus linert arias socialism. Socialist politics has been both centralist and decentralized; internationalist and nationalist in orientation; organized through political parties and opposed to party politics; at times overlapping with trade unions and at other times independent of, and critical of, unions; and present in both industrialized and developing countries. While all tendencies of socialism consider themselves democratic, the term “democratic socialist”is often used to highlight the advocates’ high value for the democratic processes and political systems, and usually to draw contrast to other socialist tendencies they may perceive to be undemocratic in their approach.
  • Facsism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

A Movement to Change the World: Three Questions About Non-Violence to Black Power

1. How did the participants in the Civil Rights movement (people and organizations) think about and use non-violent direct-action?  What strategies did they employ and why?

Stated in Retreiving the Past by Mark Espisito, historians do not agree with the event that really started the civil rights movement.  Rather than trying to come to terms with something as trivial as a date, one should be looking at the hardships all African Americans have faced since they were first put on boats and sold into slavery, up to the present day.  All those events, combined, are the starting point of the Civil Rights movement.  With that said, and moving on to the question at hand, how did the participants of the movement think about and use non-violent action–only one word comes to mind:patience.  Negros have shown a determination in a foreign that rivals most heroicalstories of the past.  The methods used by the people and organizations were sit-ins, rallies, boycotts, speeches, marches, trials, and union; all of which saw the strength of the young to usher in a new age of peace without discrimination.

In 1941, there was a push to mobilize and coordinate the masses of youth so government could give defense jobs to Blacks and Whites.  By these means FDR quickly issued an Executive Order abolishing discriminations in all government departments.  It was through the tactic of broad, organized, aggressive as action against economic centers that things could change for the black man (but for everyone, if they think about it).  Another  example of non-violent direct-action was the strategic boycott of the bus company that threw Rosa Parks in jail because she refused to move to the back of the bus.  THe bus company almost went broke because it probably did not realize that a good amount of its profits came from Negros.  The strategy eventually kicked off, Parks not being the only one protesting, only that the cry rallied around around her.  Regardless, the boycott, though threatened, spat upon, physically harmed or threatened, gaimed the notice of enough politicians to create legislation protecting Black lives. Also, the forming of non-violent groups in and around colleges to spread the word about the various movements spurred actions of desegregation in school.

2. What are the main ideas of Black Power and the Black Panther Party? How did they differ from earlier ideas?

Black power was introduced to American culture as a slogan to the Civil Rights movement becasuse of the slow pace of progress.  Capitalizing on showing their strength in numbers and not ateaching fears of White America to the questions Negros had of the times is a clear interpretation of Black Power.  Black Power rallied behind the basic fact that all Negros had two problems: 1. They were poor, and 2. They were black, which all other problems seemed to rise from.

The Black Panther Party was committed to armed self-defense, and the idea of the party was that America’s ruling circle will not give up their power without a fight; changing policy in the ballot box would get nothing truly accomplished.  No one was going to give them their rights so the B.P.P. chose violence to get their goals accomplished.

These ideas of Black Power and the B.P.P. differ from earlier ideas because Negros now had confidence behind them and were able to speak up and speak out more.  Negros were winning legislation and securing jobs, boosting the morale for all.  The fist ideas were that of patience and trying not to cause too much turmoil so the whole movement would not suffer, but the the time Black Power and the B.P.P. came about morale was high and Negroes were more educated in the ways of the world to understand the tactics they had to employ to get things accomplished

3. Which Ideology was more effective? To what do you attribute Civil Rights gains for Blacks?

How can one say one ideology is more important than the other.  Without the initial, in many respects, there can be no latter.  Without the Black Panther Party causing turmoil in the inner circle of White America, America may never have listened to the peace the Dr. Martin Luther King was striving toward.  Without organizing peaceful parties (SNCC, SCLC) there may have never been a party that saw violence as their only way to change things.

Everything is related to another, and things might not have turned out the way they did without peace and violence.  Also, the deaths of those involved on both sides could be seen as the biggest gain to the Civil Rights, because that is when those in the inner circle saw that change must happen.  The voices of those that were killed and beaten, on both sides: black and white, cop and not, young and old, those afraid and those who are bold.  Everyone suffered during this movement, and still do, and maybe even in modernity, with little that has changed, there needs to be another non-violent direct-action movement to remind the inner circle that violence is also an option.

Primal Religion? Origin Story? Myth?

Shinto Story of the Creation of Japan:  (From 8th century Japanese scholars compiling many collected oral stories in the Kojiki, produced in 712 CE) (From: Religions of the World, Neilsen et al., 1983 by St. Martins’ Press)

The first kami arose from the primordial chaos and dwelt on the high plain of heaven.  Next were created the kami of birth and growth.  Finally, the original parents–Izanagi, the male principle, and Izanami, the female principle–descended from heaven along a rainbow-like bridge.  (Heaven and Earth were closer together in those times) Standing on the tip of this bridge, Izangi thrust his spear into the ooze below.  When an island emerged, the two kami stepped down to it, mated, and produced the eight greet islands of Japan.  In this cycle the male-female love that turned to hate was the dominant theme and was never wholly resolved.  Many kami were born to the couple but only after the dominance of the male was recognized.  When the male god of fire was born to Izanami, his mother was killed by the flames.  Izanami thus went to Yomi, the land of the dead beneath the earth, and in his grief Izanagi followed his wife.  DEspitethe warning of Izanami, whose body body was now corrupt, he could not keep from looking at her.  They quarreled, and Izanagi fled back to the upper world, pursued by the polluting forces of decay, disease, and death.  These forces turned into the thunder demons, Kati who bring disease and death to humanity.  Seeking to repair the harm he had unintentionally caused, Izanagi vowed to create life even faster than the thunder demons could destroy it.  Thus the present balance between death and life was established.

Judeo-Christian Story of Creation: (Early Hebrew stories of origins of the world were passed orally for many centuries before being written down some time after 1000 BCE) (From: Genesis 1: 1-32 in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1962)

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.  And God said, “let there be light”; and there was light.  And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.  God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.  And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called the seas. And God saw that it was good. And God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants that yield seed, and fruit bearing trees in which is their seed, each according to its kind upon the earth.” And it was so … [God creates the stars, sun and moon, and creates living creatures].  And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind.  And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and overall the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created man in likeness, in the image of God He created him; male and female He  created them.  And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” And God saw everything made, and behold, it was very good.  And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

Creation Story of the Native America Crow Tribe: (From The Religious World by Bush, et al.. Macmillan, New York, 1988)

In the beginning the earth was covered by water.  Old Man Who Did Everything was wandering over the water.  He heard voices and found four ducks, two large blue-eyed ducks and two small red-eyed ducks. Old Man Who Did Everything Asked the ducks to dive under the water in order to discover if anything existed.  After the two large ducks failed to discover anything, the two small ducks dived and returned with mud in their bills.  Out of this mud Old Man Who Did Everythingcreated the sky, plants, trees, animals, and finally humans.  After testing the humans he created, he sent two groups away and kept the bravest group with him.  This group became known as the Crow people.

Hindu Story of Aditi and the Birth of the Gods: (A part of the Rig Veda, going back over 2000 BCE) (from: Anthology of World Scriptures by Robert Van Voort Wadsworth, 1994, Belmont CA)

Lets us speak with wonder of the births of the gods, so that someone may see them when the hymns are chanted in this later age.  The lord of sacred speech, like a smith, fanned them together.  In the earliest age of the gods, existence was born from non-existence.  After this the waters of the sky were born from her who crouched with legs spread. The earth was born from her who crouched with legs spread, and from the earth the waters of the sky were born.  From Aditi, Daksa was born, and from Daksa, Aditi was born.  For Aditi was born as your daughter, O Daksa, and after her were born the blessed gods, the kinsmen of immortality.  When you gods took your places there in the water with your hands joined together, a thick cloud of mist arose from you that was hidden in the ocean.  Eight sons are there of Aditi, who were born of here body.  With seven she went forth among the gods, but she threw Martanda, the sun, aside.  With seven sons Aditi wen forth into the earliest stage. But she bore Martanda so that he would in turn beget offspring and then soon die.

Ethnogenesis of the Northmen

image

Ethnogenesis, from the Greek words ethno: meaning group of people, and Genesis: meaning coming into being.  This word portrays the beginning of people’s, and the people under discussion is that of the Northman, or Norse.

Between the 9th and 10th centuries, after the raids of the Muslims and Magyars, an influential group of Scandanavian warriors sailed their Drakkars south in the summer where they indulged in looting and pillaging along the coasts and river valleys of Western Europe.  The Viking ships, called Drakkars because of the artistic design of a dragon head carved into the front of the boat, were the main modes of transportation and carried between 50 and 100 men.  They were powered by a single sail with oars and were devastating because of their speed and ability to sail up the shallow rivers of Europe for surprise engagements.

These newest invaders sought loot, tribute, and heroic reputation, and to get these they ravaged lands, looted churches and monasteries, took slaves for work and ransom, defeated many who opposed, and then put insurmountable fear into the towns that lay in their path.  The Scandanavian expansion included Norwegians moving into Ireland and the coasts of Western Britain; Swedes moving into the Eastern Baltic and all along Northwestern Russia; and the Danes, who attacked Eastern England, Frisia, the Rhineland, and infiltrated Western France itself.  It was by the early 9th century that raiding parties grew larger and turned into settling parties, which turned into expeditionary armies seeking to take land and settle it.  This is due to the Vikings Dakkar, hastily-built defenses, military preparations, and an afterlife that glorified death on the battlefield that enabled them to raid successfully and become a terror for those living in undefended towns and villages along waterways.

By the late 9th century Vikings sailed the North Atlantic and settled Iceland.  By the late 10th century, the age of Viking Expansion came to an end with the extension of royal authority and the Christianizing of the Scandanavian kings.  It wasn’t until the 11th century, and recently discovered in 1961, that Leif Erickson sailed further west and landed at Jellyfish Creek in Northern Newfoundland, which indicates a temporary occupation of North America by Vikings.  According to Europe and the Middle Ages, Marc Bloch pointed out that the Vikings were the last outside invaders of Western Europe until the allied landings in 1944 during World War II.

A source that gives people a look into the time period is the Annals of Ste. Bertin, which gives brief detail on the accounts of the Vikings. The source analyzed is from 843-859, and begins with the Northmen coming to Nantes and killing many, pillaging the city, and then plundered lower Aquitaine.  The Annals then mentions how in 844 the Northmen  ascended as far as Toulouse where they pillaged both sides of the bank of the Garonne, but when they left the region for Northern Spain were overcome by attacks from cross bowmen and combat against Saracens.

The Nine Worlds of the Tree of Life in Norse Mythology
The Nine Worlds of the Tree of Life in Norse Mythology

Next, The Annals mentions that in 845 the Northmen sailed the Seine and came upon Paris without any resistance.  This marked an engagement against Charles the Bald who saw that victory was not an option and made an agreement by gift of 7,000 livres.  The Northmen then sailed the Elbe and battled Louis of German who won the day by the help of their Lord Jesus Christ.  These accounts are followed by the Northmen arriving without opposition before Tours in 853-854.  Luckily for those being invaded, Agius, bishop of Orleans, and Buchard, bishop of Chartres, gathered soldiers and ships to stop them.  This only had the Vikings abandon their design and return to the lower Loire, and set off to ascend on the city of Angers.

The Northmen then attempted to go overland in 855 to the city Poitiers, only to have the Aquitanians battle them so that no more than 300 escaped.  The Annals concludes that the Norhtmen made a long sea voyage all the way to Valence, and returning to the island where they had fixed their habitation, Camargue.

Abbo’s Wars of Count Odo with the Northmen in the reign of Charles the Fat is a detailed account of the Northmen in 885 trying to attack Paris.  They came with an estimated 700 ships  and attempted to use their numbers to intimidate Parisians.  It is written by Abbo that Siegfreid was the commander of the Northmen and he appeared at the walls of the city to negotiate surrender.  Bishop Gauzelin conversed with Seigfried, who told the bishop to throw open the gates and nothing the bishop or Count Odo owns would be touched, along with the lives of those in the city.  The bishop replied that he was entrusted by Emperor Charles to keep safe the city and assure its peace.

The following morning battle ensued.  Abbo mentioned that the Northmen approached “the Tower”. Because it blocked access to the Great Bridge that connected the right back with the island the city is built on.  The battle raged and heroes were made, of which Count Odo, his brother Robert, and Count Ragenar distinguished themselves for bravery.  Abbo tells of the Northmen retreating with their wounded only to regroup and attack the next day with as much ferocity.  The Battle for Paris was quelled by Charles the Bald giving the Northmen 700 pounds of silver to leave France.

The Chronicles of Ste. Denis based on Dudo and William of Jumiegesi is a brief account of the 10th century that revolves around a Norman named Rollo, a pagan, baptized in 912.  Chronicles begins with King Charles giving the province of Flanders and Duchy of Normandy to Rollo, and acquiring him to show allegiance by kissing the Kings foot.  Rollo swore allegiance but would not kiss the foot, and proceeded to convert him and his men to Christianity.  Chronicles also mentions the good Rollo did for the community by dividing land among his followers, constructing new buildings, giving inviolable rights and laws to his subjects, rebuilding churches and restoring temples, repairing walls and fortifications of the cities, and supplying  the land that was given to him with provisions for future rebellions.

The demonstration of ethnogenesis by the Northmen sailing, pillaging, and settling, is creating  new cultures and mingling with old ones all over Europe.  The Northman sailed and marched over much of Europe and left material and generic culture wherever they traveled.  In doing so it created a beginning of people’s (ethnogenesis) that assimilated many of whom they came across.  The Northmen did not always inhabit the land they pillaged, which allowed other cultures to come and inhabit the lands they pillaged, so as to even set up ethnogenesis for other groups.

 

 

Leveling Out Media Costs on Consumers; The People’s Bundle

Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson had the People’s Eyebrow and the People’s Elbow, and now I believe it is time to introduce a new concept to level out the Internet and Cable costs normally assigned to the consumer.

There is a term floating around certain circles making the claim the “Print is Dead.”  In some respects this is absolutely true, in others it couldn’t be more wrong.  But not to get sucked into that debate, I’m just going to acknowledge that it is there and move on with my crazy argument, and that I hope Bernie Sanders hears about and will endorse this idea.

Before we go on with the argument, though, there is a term that everyone needs to be familiar with: POSITIONING.  This seems like an innocent term or concept, but in the media/mass comm/advertising world, it has specific, and possibly diabolical, meaning.  Positioning is  where brand is positioned IN THE MIND OF THE CONSUMER.  Now this is not some hokey, magical, conspiracy stuff going on here.

This is countless hours and vast fortunes going into researching how to best position a message into the mind of the consumer to get the best long-term effect.  Firstly, it’s concept is based on product and services, and so on positioning of competitors.  Secondly, positioning is used in advertising a newly created product designed to meet unmet consumer needs and to advance pre-existing technologies.  Thirdly, positioning is used to help determine your emotional/rational roller coaster ride; i.e.  if a company can buy so much time in your head they can help predict the odds you will choose their product or do what is being offered.

Advertisers can event help determine career positions; “Talking up STEM, Farmers, military,” “Talking down X,Y,Z”; you won’t be happy as an artist, you need to choose STEM—Old Navy/GAP t-shirt;

“Start here work there;” medical field slogan– no guarantee/partnership, only interning and not full time paid job, just use the student for the volunteer hours, but no guarantee of job afterwards, use successful people in the neighborhood that live in neighborhood whole life for advertisements, but get job because they went to nursing school at local hospital, know everyone before starting, and then hospital and school advertise if you “start here, you can work there,” but not so if you did not grow up there.  In other words positioning not only brands consumables, but also positions brands your in life and making it appear as if 1) it was your choice to get the product, 2) gives the appearance of choice.

So, positioning, taking up time in the minds of every consumer, should be accounted for, and even more importantly should be accounted for the benefit of the consumer; hence the People’s Bundle.

When a consumer, YOU, buy a television, smartphone, or iPad type device, the services currently available are all separate, highly-competitive, paid-for services who turn people into targets and profits. (Cable, Internet, HD, replay/recording services)  But we can’t forget about positioning people.  The fact that companies, due to creative advertising, are getting free air time in our heads and not paying for it.

What I call for is nothing less than revolutionary, a cry against the detested status quo.

Bundling has a history, and not just in the media sector, but also the finance and real estate sector.

Bundling brought down the real estate bubble.  Because of greed/addiction to gambling/to societal acceptance that this was ok; even going so far as a societal redistribution of what value means on a societal and linguistical level.

Advertising is a billion/trillion dollar industry, propping up the whole sales and service economy of the United States.  Much of this money goes into Research and Development, pockets and bad business investments.  All producing so much data that the algorithms we create are good at dechipering the data but they are still overwhelmed producing irregular results.  There needs to be a reorientation/shift away from data mining/collection as being the hottest topic and highest paid field toward forcing the advertisers to pay the people for the business/industry involutary research and positioning done to and on the people and everyday consumers.

Because media uses data mining/data collection/myth creating techniques to position information in your mind, i.e. “buying airspace” in your head, then they should be held liable to the people/consumer for which they target and position.

There are organizations, like Neilsen, that are hoarders of information, digital or otherwise.  There are others who use this information collected to see real knowledge about the world they situationally find themselves in; the situational discourse community.

But what I am offering is nothing short of a checks and balances, much like the lawmakers did against the tobacco companies targeting and positioning in their advertisements.  A checks and balances to force better business ethic, though all along great business ethic is what should have been the inherent choice.

In conclusion, and in summary, because there is deliberate positioning of products and services in the minds of everyday people/consumers in the United States, I am proposing a change in how people obtain Internet, Cable, HD, and other services.

Upon purchase of a product, for example Television, smartphone, gaming console, computer, or iPad type device, there should be some inherent services (Internet, Cable, HD) that come with the device, and should not be paid for by the consumer, individually and preyed upon by industries using a Vertical Organizational model and who care nothing except profit.

Those services could be competed for by companies applied at purchase of the device, but, overall, this method will return customer value to vertical organizational methods.

And, mind you, this package will forever be know as: “The People’s Bundle.”  Where you pay for a product, and they pay you for the services.

Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb, Donald Trump, Ron/Rand Paul: just in case you were monitoring.