Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Progressive Party 2020: Or Do We Hit the Reset Button?


"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” - Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address, November 19, 1863


         As we get closer and closer to the 2016 Presidential Election, the American people are beginning to find that they are at an impasse. Both of our major political parties are headed for a split. The Republican establishment is preparing to turn on Trump. As he continues to build up momentum towards that party's nomination, many of their senior leaders are threatening to run to Hillary and the Democratic Party establishment. Further, the Democratic Party's base is getting ready to turn on its establishment if Bernie Sanders is denied the nomination. They re threatening to do so more and more seriously, even as charges of voter suppression and corrupt leadership clog up that party's affairs. The outcome of a double party split is interesting to contemplate, especially when the movements challenging both party's old guards are populist in nature. If the Republican and Democratic party establishments join hands, they would form a new Conservative Party. If no other party is formed, this would leave a huge gap on the left, but it does not seem impossible for that to happen. Out of the chaos of a double party split, the left could finally take the opportunity to coalesce around a strong candidate. They could form the Progressive Party and give the American left an actual mainstream presence, and perhaps, even challenge for the White House. Such would be, especially amidst the present chaos, an amazing victory.


         The question then arises, what happens if this new Progressive Party does not win this election, but rather, loses out to the new Conservative Party? If this new leftist party wanted to respect the present system for what it is and continue to operate within its bounds, then their next few steps would be to centralize party leadership, to begin raising funds, and to begin putting together a slate of candidates for the 2018 Congressional Elections. The ultimate would goal would then be to put together a strong ticket and win White House in 2020. I am, however, forced to question whether or not that would really be all that feasible. The new conservative coalition that would develop out of the chaos of this election cycle would do everything in its power to solidify the voter suppression efforts that both parties are presently guilty of, and they would target the same people, leftists, racial minorities, immigrants, and young people, etc. It would be harder and harder for people on the left to legally organize the vote, let alone to form a new party that had the strength to resist this new conservative coalition. This repressed left would have to do something, if it wanted to remain relevant and able to participate in politics. Outside legal options, which would most surely be limited by more restrictive laws, they would have to come up with something more creative. What could they possibly do? They could, conceivably, follow the example of this nation's founders and exercise their sovereign right and moral duty to throw off this oppressive government and provide new guards for their future security.
        The American people have to call for a Constitutional Convention, not to amend the Constitution, though I do revere it so, but to replace it entirely. The present Constitution has become outdated, overly restrictive, and the government that it outlines is no longer capable of adequately representing the real make-up of the American citizenry. The Constitution was written to intentionally make change a slow process. The American people are to the point where that is no longer acceptable. We must secure or ourselves a form of government that can change with us, as we change. We need to establish a parliamentary form of government. Further, all present elected officials, to include state officials, and those that support or work for them, must not be allowed access to the convention that is called for this purpose. They have already proven the lengths to which they are willing go to keep us from exercising the sovereign power that we legally posses. Therefore, it has to be a convention elected from the present population, absent these individuals. This does not mean that present political boundaries should be abolished. The election process can occur in stages. It can begin with city assemblies, move up to state conferences, and then members of these bodies can elect delegates to a National Constitutional Convention. 
        The American people, as the true and only sovereign power in this nation, have the right to call these assemblies without the permission of the present government. They have the right, as is guaranteed by the present constitution, to meat peaceably and choose their own future for themselves, rather than have that future dictated to them by a government that has lost touch with its people and frankly, with itself. Though, the intent is to write a new constitution, it is still prudent for the people to make full use of the protections that are guaranteed to them in the present constitution. The people then have to elect and defend new leaders, and they must be able to represent as many different political regions as they can, so that when the time comes, they will be able to just step into the void left by a government that has lost the support of the people, whose power they are borrowing. Will the present government attempt to break such a venture apart? Yes, it will. Will it resort to tactics unbefitting an elected group of honorable statesmen in its effort to discredit such a movement? It most definitely will! Mainly, because they have no honor. Will the present government attempt to goad the delegates into engaging in pitched battles in the streets in its effort to protect its own interests? Without a doubt, and it will do so with a fervent passion that has not been seen from this government in a very long time. This, however, is precisely what the American people need this government to do. We need go get it to take the first punitive actions.
        This government has already done a great deal to lose the respect and support of the rest of the world. The American people, after they have held these meetings, and after they have drafted a new constitution, and further, have elected new leaders, have to show the world what this government is really willing to do to remain in absolute control of its position. Once the constitution is written, it must be submitted to every branch of government, and they have to be given an appropriate time table to respond to this usurpation of the power that we gave to them. They will, of course, reject it outright, and they will probably do so without even properly examining the document. It will then be the job of the American people to shut them down. How is this to be done? First, massive and peaceful protests must be held, declaring to our government that they have been deemed to be illegitimate and must peaceably step down. It can be guaranteed that they will not do that. That is when the American people simply refuse to recognize their authority. Refuse to cooperate with the police. Refuse to pay fines, fees, and taxes. If they want to defund our programs, it is time that we defunded theirs. Refuse to recognize the authority of any and all institutions of this, now, arcane government. We must slowly drain them of all remaining power that they may still possess.


        Of course, keep up the protests and never let up, not for anything. The biggest thing that needs to be remembered about this plan is that in no way, whatsoever, should the people be the first ones to resort to violence with their resistance and protests. I say this because we posses something that the generations before us did not, technology that can give us the ability to expose this government to the world without having to shed blood. This government that has now been de-legitimized has to be the first one to commit violence against the people. It is the only way that we will be able to garner the recognition and respect of the international community. They have to be able to see that the present government has lost its ability to govern, and this government has to debase itself so severely that when the people do finally rise up and place the people in that government into criminal custody, which is their sovereign right, the rest of the world will see their actions as justified and offer them support. The people, and their new government, must be the ones in possession of the moral high ground. They have to have Constitutional and Natural Law squarely on their side. The next step will be to seek formal recognition from the United Nations and other international institutions.
        The support of the International Community is critical. If violence does break out, and it will, the fault has to lie directly on the government that the people of this nation have rejected.  The new government formed by this movement has to be able to go to the United Nations with clean hands. The propaganda war will be difficult to fight, but the American people have to be able to show their mettle in the face of the most drastic resistance. The fight for recognition will be tied to this. The present government is not going to surrender willingly. We must trust ourselves to make such decisions, or the effort will fail before it ever begins. The implications of this movement are far reaching. The present government is running this country into the ground and is placing it on a path towards a colossal defeat. We have to step in and stop this slow death before they get us all killed along with them. This is how we must tell the story to the rest of the world. We have to show them that we know what this government is doing is wrong and that we are willing to stop it. If this government gets locked down in a domestic crisis, it will not be able to continue the crimes that it is committing around the world. If our government will not listen to us and begin acting fairly, me must make it do so, or replace it. The power is in our hands. I say that if we want to ensure that government of the people, by the people, and for the people does not perish from the earth, we need to just go ahead and hit the reset button.....

Sunday, March 27, 2016

A Counter-Response to Christopher Williams' Criticism


"Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill


        Let me begin by saying that I greatly appreciate Comrade Williams' both cogent and civil criticism of my last piece, “I am Done with Being Made to Feel Like a Social Reject (Part Two): Thomas Jefferson You Are More Right than You Know!” (http://refusetocooperate.blogspot.com/2016/03/i-am-done-with-being-made-to-feel-like_25.html)

        It is always a great pleasure when the exchange of ideas can take place as smoothly and respectfully as it is in this case. Perhaps, such exchanges can set an example for the future and produce a human society that chooses to think before it acts, rather than exploding with unbridled emotion that puts us all in jeopardy. It is in this spirit that I offer my response. I will address each criticism in order.

1.  I'll start with Rousseau: He was basically a bourgeois idealist who pulled his theory out of thin air to rationalize his class interest. Social contract isn’t a thing. People revolt not because of any violation of some supposed contract nor any kind of idealistic moralizing nor abstract appeals to justice. They revolt because of real material conditions of death and suffering that are no longer survivable , quaint moralizing be damned! Revolution happens because of a crisis where the old way of doing things is literally impossible and the material conditions exist for a new way of existing. 

        I understand that Rousseau comes of as a bourgeois idealist, but I do not think this is an entirely fair claim. Additionally, at the same time, I do not believe that he pulled his theory out of thin air to satisfy his class interests. Rousseau was the undisciplined son of watchmaker, whose intellectual understanding of the world was influenced by a Calvinist upbringing, a number of years spent wondering Europe tutoring and working as a secretary, and the unfairly organized social structure of French bourgeois society that surrounded the intellectual social circles and the court of the French Kings. He was not poor by any means, but he did have an understanding of European history up to his time. He knew of the many peasant revolts against feudalism that had occurred in the past four hundred years from his birth. In his wanderings, he had seen the depravity that still existed in the streets of European cities and on European manors, and he had seen the lack of interest in such depravity that had overtaken bourgeois society and the French Court. 


        "The Social Contract" was an effort to understand how such arrangements had come about, and to understand how such arrangements could change. Influenced by life experiences, the French socialite, Madame de Warens, his friendship with Diderot, and what he felt was an unfairly arranged social order. he wrote a treatise that he felt properly defined the nature of human government. He knew how badly the peasant revolts failed, and how difficult it was to institute change in a rigid social order, so he determined that in order for any change to be effected, there had to be a revolt from within the top rungs of that rigid social order. He recognized, like many after him, that the most successful revolts have always been those who had enlightened leaders at the helm. Now, there is a seemingly glaring biased against the poor working classes, who he and others have said were more likely to endure their circumstances than revolt against them, in this statement, but recognize that in his time, the poor working classes very rarely had access to the type of education that he did. This normally led to, as he and others recognized, unorganized and unsuccessful attempts to throw off the chains of oppression. Admittedly, his logic was flawed to a degree, but his idea was developed by others over time, and eventually led to the idea of the Vanguard, as is mentioned by Marx and his contemporaries, and later, Lenin.

2. The American Revolution: Jefferson and his revolution was essentially a bourgeois revolution, and by that I mean it was started, led by, and served the merchant class, it was a necessary revolution as it threw off the yoke of the old feudal system, which is a positive, but to move beyond that we need to move beyond the ideological system that it works within.

3. The Civil War: The Civil War was basically a resolution of the question of what form work under American capitalism would take. It was a question of chattel slavery vs wage slavery, obviously wage slavery won that battle. There wasn't really anything revolutionary about the civil war nor even really anything progressive despite some nice sounding speeches.

        I believe that I can connect these two to my response to the previous criticism. If feudalism's influence over the English American colonies was going to end, it was not going to end because the poorer classes, this being poor wage workers and slaves, in the colonies led a revolt. Honestly, if that had had happened, they would have been much more likely to revolt against the merchant class of the colonies than they would have the king. They had no understanding of the complexities of human society and government. They had been kept poor and uneducated for a reason. The revolt had to be led by the merchant class in the colonies, just as it eventually was in Europe. This, of course, did give way to the rise of capitalism, and the creation of a new class system that would eventually have to be reckoned with. 


        It was reckoned with, first during the Civil War. As Christopher mentioned, the Civil War settled the issue of labor. Wage labor won as the primary tool of Capitalism, but the Civil War was a revolution fermented by the Southern Elite, in their effort to protect their own economic interests. They merely warped the statement in the Declaration of Independence that the Founders used to justify their own rebellion, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." They failed ultimately, to preserve slavery, but their rebellion did not end in 1865. Not months after Robert E. Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and several other former Confederates, formed the Ku Klux Klan. This organization swiftly developed into a guerrilla warfare unit whose sole goal was to reverse all of the progressive Reconstruction measures enacted by Congress after the war. In this, they succeeded. Congress gave up on Reconstruction in 1877, and immediately afterwards, former Confederates returned to government in the South and established a new wage based system of oppression, based on terrorism, which is now known as the Jim Crow Era.
        Now, here is where I tie all three of these together. In the three periods that are addressed, there was a general imbalance that existed between the ruling elite and the poor working classes. This gap was based almost entirely on education. In the Europe of Rousseau's day, in the American Colonies leading up to the American Revolution, and in the United States, before, during, and for some years after the Civil War, the poor working classes lacked the education needed to properly execute an effective rebellion. However, the Progressive Era, after about 1910, began to change this status quo. First, cities, then states, and then the federal government began to pass anti child labor laws and pro public education laws. By the 1940s, at least half of all American children were completing a high school level free public education. To the point now that a public education to the high school level is not only free, but legally mandatory. 
        Despite the many inequities that were endured and revolted against along the way, the poor working classes have a basic education that was not available to previous generations. Further, despite the many glaring inequalities that still exist, the American working class, without that education, would not be able to do as we are doing now. They would not be able to debate the finer points of human government because they would not have the needed education to do so. We can understand what it means to see our fellow working class comrades wallowing in squalor, and we can understand what actions are necessary to help to not only get them out of those conditions, but to keep them out of those conditions. All that is necessary now is a reversing of the plague of apathy that has taken over the educated working classes.

4. Women’s Rights: Kent starts out ok here, but then goes bad, reverse sexism is like reverse racism: it isn’t a thing. What Kent points to here are basically the things that MRA’s bitch about as proof of women being sexist when in reality this is just the negative effects of patriarchy rebounding on its benefactors, at best some of it might be a female backlash against patriarchy but these are all consequences and fruits of sexism itself not some "reverse sexism."

        I had hoped in this section more notice would have been taken of the point that I made about the unsung female heroes of the United States. There are too many women who get way too little respect for the major contributions that they have made to American society. This country would not be what it is now if it were for women like Harriet Tubman, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Fannie Lou Hamer, and many others. The courageous examples that they each set should be required education for both boys and girls in American schools, so that each can know what women are capable of. This would encourage more young girls to push themselves to be more than just the barbie doll rejects that society is trying to create, and would teach young boys to not only treat girls the proper respect but also to fight for them just as hard as they would fight for themselves.


        As for my position on Reverse Sexism that Christopher says is not a thing, I must admit partially, that my opinion on this has been somewhat developed by personal experience. The formal definition of sexism is this, prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex. It can also be called gender discrimination, and this is a problem in both directions. Women, as I admitted, have gotten the brunt of this form of discrimination for the vast majority of human history, but that does not mean that men have not gotten the same treatment at times. If a man goes to the police and reports that his wife beats him, what is the general reaction? It is documented that in many cases, men are laughed out of the precinct. This is sexism. It criticizes the man for not meeting the standards of his assigned gender role as the masculine man that can control his woman. To compound this, if he does attempt to control his woman, perhaps by simply restraining her, he runs the risk of being labeled a wife beater. He is then also subject to possible criminal prosecution, when it was his wife that was doing the real beating in the first place. Worse, she has gotten away with spousal abuse, a state crime, scot free. There is also the divorce issue. In instances where the woman makes more money than the man, it is still the man that is most likely to have to pay child support, lose property, and suffer other financial burdens that he was not equipped to handle based on the arrangement that he had established with his wife. Then there is also, of course, the cliche commercials that make men out to be idiots, drunks, sex addicts, cheaters, and countless other negative stereotypes. If women do not like such cliches, and want to see them put to end, how is it fair that they then do the very same thing to men? Reverse Sexism is a thing.

5. On Police Brutality: There's a lot of good stuff here but strangely Kent talks about police brutality like its a new thing or as if we have a “rising” police state. Reality is we always have had a police state for as long as police have existed. Any knowledge of the history of police demonstrates the classist, and in the US especially, racist roots of police forces and the poor and black who have always been on the receiving end of the boot of the law. It is only in recent decades that such violence has become more inflicted on increasingly less privileged whites and in no small part due to black activist work that people are being forced to face what the oppressed have always known.

        I do not believe that a police state, in the form that I am envisioning, is what has always existed in the United States. In the past, there have been occasions where the military was as police force, like in the Reconstruction Era South, and they did have federal legislation backing them up, but they were not a formal full police force. There have also been formal full time police forces in the United States since before its formal foundation; however, those forces were not militarized. Finally, Constitutionally, a federal police force is not legal. The Constitution has an interesting amendment that leaves the policing authority to the state governments. The Tenth Amendment grants all power not mentioned in the previous articles and amendments of the Constitution to the states, and that includes the power to police the populace. 


        This, however, is not what we have now. We have local police forces that are armed to the level of elite combat soldiers, who are able to enforce federal law at the ground level, and who, are largely granted the same immunity that is given to federal officials. We also have federal agencies whose job it is to police the populace at the national level such as the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the DEA, the ATF, the Secret Service, the US Marshall's Service, and many more. Further, these technically unconstitutional agencies have been granted vast power to enforce the laws of the United States against its own population. The Patriot Act and the Freedom Act are just two of the most recent examples. We can be arrested, we can be held without trial, our homes can be invaded, our phones can be tapped, our property can be seized, and much more, all without warrant.  This all in no way resembles what the Founders envisioned for the policing of the general populace. In the past, we may have had police in the states, or forces granted temporary police powers, but now we live in a country where we are policed by our own government on a permanent basis. We are watched like we are all potential criminals. The only thing that differentiates this nation from Nazi Germany, is that greater effort is put into hiding that fact from the people.

6. On Revolution: I have little to say here as most of this is pretty well known fact, I will just reiterate the Marxist perspective that revolution is the only means by which liberation of the workers will be achieved as those in power will not give it up without a fight. We however are not really in a revolutionary crisis at this time so fomenting revolution is premature, we should have no tolerance for adventurism. The people need education and mass organization before revolution would be advisable. Currently the American Left is in shambles, the average worker is horribly backward on multiple issues, and the most well trained and organized people in the country are right wing reactionaries. That is a recipe for disaster. The correct recipe is teaching the correct theoretical line and following it up with correct practice.

        I agree that revolution is most likely to the only way that the working classes will every truly get the redresses that they seek. I also agree that this is the case because the powers that be will, much the ruling classes of past eras, not give up their power without a violent and brutal fight. However, as to the conditions not being ripe for revolution, I would argue that if the conditions are not yet ripe for revolution, then it is up to the Vanguard, which in this day in age is the educated working classes, to make the the conditions ripe for revolution. The American left is in shambles, but at some point, they are going to have to come out of their self induced exile and get to work. The right wing reactionaries that Christopher speaks of need a coherent counter-force to battle them in the streets. This is where the left can make the conditions properly rip for revolution.

7. Gun Violence: Kent is largely correct here except for one glaring issue: “ The real answer is to solve the problem of mental illness. If we, as a nation, were to actually take the time to give the mentally ill the treatment that they truly need, they would be thousands of times less likely to resort to violent actions with guns. “ This is ableist garbage. Most shooters are not mentally ill and mentally ill people are far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators. Laws that disarm the mentally ill just leave a frequently oppressed group defenseless as do most liberal gun control laws which are also frequently racist as well.


        Christopher and I, agree even more on the causes of gun violence than on the necessity of revolution. I think, especially, we agree on the need to educate the people. His criticism comes on how I refer to the mentally ill. I should have had him read my previous piece also.

"I, and anyone else who has this disorder, are no different than anyone else because we have to deal with this issue. I am just as capable of contributing to the advancement of humanity as anyone else. All this means is that for whatever reason, my brain operates a tad bid differently than most people. The disturbance, as I like to call it, causes to me see and interact with the world and the people occupying it, in the extreme, with very little room left for any sort of middle ground. Neither does this make me a threat to society, as some have suggested to me in my lifetime. I, more than others, maybe, was lucky to have people in my family, who, while they never went to the doctor for the issue, knew they had the problem and taught me to deal with it using techniques that they had developed over entire lifetimes. It is in adulthood that I have sought professional help to manage those symptoms that have proven too strong for me defeat alone. I was trained to adapt to my environment, to observe my behavior and adjust myself when I know I am acting out character, and to regulate myself through meditation, reflection, and education. Not everyone has the fortune to get this kind of guidance. They must and should not be stigmatized for that. We, as a whole society, need to express the same compassion for their condition that was shown to me when I was only a child. Bi-Polar Disorder is not something that one contracts because of irresponsible living. It is something that a person is born with, and something that people can be taught to live with, given the appropriate attention. Think on that the next time you label someone crazy."


        As someone who has suffered from mental illness in the past, and still battles with it now, I have to be frank that it is not ableist to say that the mentally ill do not need to be in possession of fire arms. When I was at the peak of my troubles, the first thing that I did, especially after my pistol found its way into my mouth on more than one occasion, was to sell all of my guns. I knew that I was a danger not just to myself, but also to others. I am grateful to have had friends at my side that were able to help me through those tumultuous times and help me to see that fact. It is people that do not have such social support that I am worried about because I have been there, and I know what is going on in their minds. Disarming the mentally ill is not just a public safety measure, it is a measure designed to save their lives also.  Where the issue would become ableist is if those disarming policies were made permanent. Admittedly, this is a sticky issue, because who is to say when someone is ready to to safely handle a weapon of death again? Ultimately, the real solution would be to have no need for any such weapons at all. If people could just get along and settle their differences peacefully, there would be no need for us to have a debate over whether a manic depressive bipolar person should be aloud to own a weapon or not.


In Summary: There are a number of issues that Christopher and I have differing opinions on, but there is one big central issue that we both very much agree upon. We both recognize that this country has some serious problems and that they are not going to be solved by the same people that created them. If anything is going to change in this country, it is the victims of the ruling classes of the United States that are going to have to  make those changes. It is the poor working classes that have to act. We also agree that such is the moral duty of anyone who has the basic education required to be able to make sense of the inconsistencies that exist in this country. On those grounds, I count Christopher a friend and a Comrade, and I thank him for his very thoughtful response to my writing. Solidarity Forever!

Saturday, March 26, 2016

A Marxist Response to Halliburton


"We can do things the cheap way, the simple way, for the short term and without regard for the future. Or, we can make the extra effort, do the hard work, absorb the criticism and make decisions that will cause a better future." - Mike Rounds


A Marxist response to Halliburton

By: Christopher Williams


This is a response to Kent Halliburton’s, 

“I am Done with Being Made to Feel Like a Social Reject (Part Two): Thomas Jefferson You Are More Right than You Know!” (http://refusetocooperate.blogspot.com/2016/03/i-am-done-with-being-made-to-feel-like_25.html)

I will try to go point by point as there’s a lot of issues addressed in the article . 

1. I'll start with Rousseau: He was basically a bourgeois idealist who pulled his theory out of thin air to rationalize his class interest. Social contract isn’t a thing. People revolt not because of any violation of some supposed contract nor any kind of idealistic moralizing nor abstract appeals to justice. They revolt because of real material conditions of death and suffering that are no longer survivable , quaint moralizing be damned! Revolution happens because of a crisis where the old way of doing things is literally impossible and the material conditions exist for a new way of existing. 

2. The American Revolution: Jefferson and his revolution was essentially a bourgeois revolution, and by that I mean it was started, led by, and served the merchant class, it was a necessary revolution as it threw off the yoke of the old feudal system, which is a positive, but to move beyond that we need to move beyond the ideological system that it works within. 

3. The Civil War: The Civil War was basically a resolution of the question of what form work under American capitalism would take. It was a question of chattel slavery vs wage slavery, obviously wage slavery won that battle. There wasn't really anything revolutionary about the civil war nor even really anything progressive despite some nice sounding speeches. 

4. Women’s Rights: Kent starts out ok here, but then goes bad, reverse sexism is like reverse racism: it isn’t a thing. What Kent points to here are basically the things that MRA’s bitch about as proof of women being sexist when in reality this is just the negative effects of patriarchy rebounding on its benefactors, at best some of it might be a female backlash against patriarchy but these are all consequences and fruits of sexism itself not some “reverse sexism”.

5. On Police Brutality: There's a lot of good stuff here but strangely Kent talks about police brutality like its a new thing or as if we have a “rising” police state. Reality is we always have had a police state for as long as police have existed. Any knowledge of the history of police demonstrates the classist, and in the US especially, racist roots of police forces and the poor and black who have always been on the receiving end of the boot of the law. It is only in recent decades that such violence has become more inflicted on increasingly less privileged whites and in no small part due to black activist work that people are being forced to face what the oppressed have always known.

6. On Revolution: I have little to say here as most of this is pretty well known fact, I will just reiterate the Marxist perspective that revolution is the only means by which liberation of the workers will be achieved as those in power will not give it up without a fight. We however are not really in a revolutionary crisis at this time so fomenting revolution is premature, we should have no tolerance for adventurism. The people need education and mass organization before revolution would be advisable. Currently the American Left is in shambles, the average worker is horribly backward on multiple issues, and the most well trained and organized people in the country are right wing reactionaries. That is a recipe for disaster. The correct recipe is teaching the correct theoretical line and following it up with correct practice.

7. Gun Violence: Kent is largely correct here except for one glaring issue: “ The real answer is to solve the problem of mental illness. If we, as a nation, were to actually take the time to give the mentally ill the treatment that they truly need, they would be thousands of times less likely to resort to violent actions with guns. “ This is ableist garbage. Most shooters are not mentally ill and mentally ill people are far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators. Laws that disarm the mentally ill just leave a frequently oppressed group defenseless as do most liberal gun control laws which are also frequently racist as well. 

In Summary: There is some good stuff by Kent on some relevant issues but ultimately it is bogged down by liberal (bourgeois ) idealism with a dangerous wandering into almost MRA territory and pretty blatant ableism.

Friday, March 25, 2016

I am Done with Being Made to Feel Like a Social Reject (Part Two): Thomas Jefferson You Are More Right than You Know!


"The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants!" - Thomas Jefferson 


        At the time that Thomas Jefferson made this statement, the nation of France was in the midst of a political upheaval that would change the face of Europe. King Louis XVI, and his wife Marie Antoinette, had been deposed, monarchy had been abolished, they had been executed, and the first French Republic had been established. He would later come to regret these words when the Republic fell into despotism and the violence became more than he was willing to stomach, but his sentiment remains true to this very day. He believed that it was the right of the ruled to to purify their nation when they found that their chosen leaders had become corrupt, and whose actions had become suspect. He had said as much less twenty years earlier when he put pen to paper to author the Declaration of Independence:

        "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

        Further, his idea that the governed had the right to dictate the behavior of their leaders was not created out of thin air. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was the French political philosopher that influenced not just Jefferson but also his many compatriots who were seeking justification for their separation from England. Paraphrased, Rousseau put it like this:

        The political aspects of a society should be divided into two parts. First, there must be a sovereign consisting of the whole population, women included, that represents the general will and is the legislative power within the state. The second division is that of the government, being distinct from the sovereign. This division is necessary because the sovereign cannot deal with particular matters like applications of the law. Doing so would undermine its generality, and therefore damage its legitimacy. Thus, government must remain a separate institution from the sovereign body. When the government exceeds the boundaries set in place by the people, it is the mission of the people to abolish such government, and begin anew.

        The political philosophy that is being espoused here, the concept that the people of a nation have a right to self-government, was reflected less than a century afterwards when the Declaration of Independence was signed, as Abraham Lincoln stood on amongst the carnage and destruction of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. He said:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here.

It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.


        These men believed that it was a natural right for people to stand up to tyranny and to defend their rights. Even more than that, they believed it to be a moral obligation of any truly patriotic citizen. It is in the spirit of these fine gentlemen that I offer my opinion on the following issues. Let the cards land where they may.....

On Women's Rights:  To gain some perspective, let us get to the text that many women in the United States have historically bound themselves to, so that we can see the irony. In the story of Adam and Eve, the foundational story of the Bible. It was not Adam who was tempted to betray God's command not to eat the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was Eve. Further, it was not Adam who knowingly chose to eat the fruit; but rather, it was Eve who deceived Adam into betraying the will of God. Essentially, the Bible blames the fall of Man on a woman. Later, in the story of King Ahab of Israel, it was not King Ahab who chose to worship a foreign god of his own free will; but rather, it was Jezebel, the evil temptress, who pressured him into it. Again, a women is given the blame for a man's choice to take actions that were unacceptable to his moral law. The bible is also well known for justifying the oppression of women. It claims that a man's wife is his property, and that he can rape and beat her, if he so chooses. In war, it is a man's right do with the enemy's women whatever he chooses. He can kill them, rape them, or take them as his property as a wife or concubine. Worse, according to the bible, this is all perfectly normal behavior.


        The United States was not founded as Christian nation. In fact, the Founding Fathers made it very clear that a nation founded on the Christian religion was not what they were envisioning. However, a great many of this nation's people are and were Christian's at the foundation of this nation. In that spirit, life for women in this country, for the majority of its history, has not been fulfilling. They have been treated like property, ignorant wenches, mindless servants, or tools, aka whores, to be used at the whims of whichever men came upon them. Women have been expected to follow the axiom that is better to be seen than to be heard. This is an absolute load of hogwash. Just like every male in this country, every woman has the right to expect fair and equal treatment in all aspects of American life, and when they fail to receive that, or find themselves being subjected to treatment that they find to be objectionable and oppressive, they have a right to resist the powers that are keeping them in those conditions. The 19th and 20th centuries gave rise to some of the most amazing unsung heroes in American history. I say unsung because even to this very day, women who have fought for the equal application of American ideals are still marginalized in favor of men. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, Lucy Stone, Ida B. Wells, Harriet Tubman, Dorothy Height, Diane Nash, Amelia Boynton, Daisy Bates, Fannie Lou Hamer, Jo Ann Robinson, Yuri Kochiyama, Septima Clark, and countless other women deserve to have their actions immortalized in a monument on the National Mall. Their deeds should be taught to young students nationwide, so that young women can see that they too have the right to expect what men expect, and so that young men can learn that the women in their lives deserve to be treated as equals and even more so, heroes. It is inhuman to teach them otherwise.


        There are, however, certain objections that must be raised. This is where the irony lies. As is seen in the above commercial for Folgers Coffee, in national ads, in television, and in movies, women have been belittled, and made to feel like they were worth nothing more than to be kitchen hands, bed wenches, and house slaves who couldn't possibly function without a man in their life. I have a problem with this; however, I also have a problem with the tables coming full turn. Now, men are made to look like adolescent minded, sex crazed, beer sodden, jackasses incapable of living a normal live without their woman to save them from themselves. This is reverse sexism, and I do not think that I should be considered anti-woman because I make mention of it. I am most curious as to why men that note this irony are singled out as woman hating chauvinists. I, and many like me, are not the kind of men that would put women back in that position. In fact, we would fight to keep that from happening. All we ask in exchange is for the same fair treatment. We do not appreciate putting our lives on the line for someone only to turn around and have that sacrifice demonized and disrespected. Further, taking pride in our masculine nature does not make us chauvinists either. We enjoy competition, we enjoy beautiful women, and from time to time, we enjoy a good fight. These things remind us that life is worth living. We are not denying women those same joys, so they should not make us out to be evil and insensitive. Fairness and equality means that we accept each other for who we are without forcing each other to change, so long as we continue to respect one another's rights. A real man understands this and takes even more joy in treating women with the respect and dignity that they have earned. We should be respected for that.


       Now, let us move on to a more physical issue, spousal abuse. In the past, men were granted legal immunity when it came to striking their wives. Men that beat their wives are cowardly little turds, just to get that out of the way. However, what of men that take physical abuse from their wives? Should this be acceptable just because she is a woman and not a man? Should a man be forced to endure such treatment just because social convention will put his manhood in question? Why, if he even attempts to restrain his wife from hitting him, will he then be made out to be a wife beater in a criminal or civil court hearing? This treatment is unequal. There is, then, the issue of divorce. Studies have shown that, without question, it is always men that take the full brunt of the damage in a divorce case. A man is more likely to lose his home, his family, his transportation, and his monetary wealth than a woman is. This is not to say that a man does not have some responsibilities to adhere to, but it does say that men are almost always the ones that come out of the deal with the shaft. This is not saying that women should get the shaft also. It means that a fair deal should be struck, one in which both parties are required to pay equally. After all, a marriage is a two way street. Why, then, should the street, if the marriage ends for whatever reason, suddenly become a one way thoroughfare? A basic sense of human fairness should preside in all cases. This is just something to think on.....

On Police Brutality and the Police State: When the ruling class of a society feels that it has to use brute force against its own people to maintain order, there is a problem. When there are more laws on the books than law enforcement can keep track of, there is a problem. When people are in more fear of their own government than they are of foreign invasion, there is a problem. When the people of a nation are more likely to go to jail than to get a job, there is a problem. When criticism is a crime punishable by imprisonment, there is a problem. When the wealth gap in a nation is so wide that the greater majority of its people are poor, there is a problem. Such are the conditions that we find ourselves in in the United States, and if nothing is done, it will only get worse. Daily, American citizens are subjected beatings, to unlawful interrogations, to arrests without warrant, to imprisonment without just cause, trials without sufficient representation, and to summary executions, among other violations. These are not the signs of a thriving democratic society. These are the signs of a fascist police state. These are not the signs of a nation with a bright future. Rather, they are the signs of a nation that is on the verge of social fallout.


        I am inclined to liken this to a quote made by the 19th century railroad mogul, Jason Gould. He is famous for saying, "You can always hire one half of the poor to kill the other half." This is essentially what is happening. The police are people too, but they are being used by the wealthy elite to keep the remainder of the working class at bay. They are empowered by their masters with near absolute power. Questioning a police officer is enough to get a beating in the street. New videos of police beatings surface every day, and in 2015 alone, nearly one thousand people were fatally shot by the police. More shocking, given the heightened state of the state propaganda regarding terrorism, is that an American citizen if exponentially more likely to be killed by the local police than they are a terror attack. This state of affairs did not happen accidentally. It has been intentionally created over the last sixty years. Ever since the quote 'end of the Civil Rights Movement,' American industry has been slowly moving labor intensive jobs out of the country. They have been doing so to avoid paying labor union wages, also known as 'living wages.' This has put millions out of work, forced millions of others into work for less pay, and put millions of people on public welfare. History has shown that the poorer a society it is, the more likely it is to be plagued with crime, social unrest, and state oppression. The top one tenth of one percent of the population in this country, around twenty families, owns over half of the total wealth in this country, and that ratio is getting stiffer by the day. When the poor have no other means to provide for themselves than to commit crime, the type of state that we live in now, a police state, is the inevitable result.


        If you are skeptical about the idea that we live in a police state, let us look to the pieces of legislation that solidified that fact, the USA Patriot Act of 2001 and the Freedom Act of 2015. According to these laws, agents of the federal government can confiscate physical and monetary property without warrant, they can authorize wire-taps and other criminal surveillance methods without warrant, they can arrest, interrogate, and put people on trial in special criminal courts without warrant, they can hold someone without trial indefinitely, without warrant, they can conduct searches of private citizens without warrant, and they can deport anyone, including US citizens, without warrant, among other heinous violations. These laws stick the middle finger up at the US Constitution and its guarantees against illegal search and seizure, and other very important protections, and they do so on the most loosely based grounds that they possibly can. All a person has to do is meet a federal official's loose interpretation of three main points; they have attempted to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, they have attempted to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or they have attempted to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. One of the other main aspects of a police state are glaring contradictions between the propaganda spewed in the media and the reality in the streets. This government has done each of these very things in its effort control its own civilian population, and it has done and is doing such things to other nations, also. They are basically saying to us, "Do as we say, not as we do." How many people were told this by their parents when they were children, and how many of us know it to be as big a pile of horse manure now as it was then?

On Revolution, Civil Disobedience, and the Vote: Revolution, civil disobedience, and the vote should not be considered as separate from one another, but rather as a single set of tools that the working classes in a democratic society are equipped with to effect change in that society. They actually work in concert with one another. The first thing that the working class has at their disposal is the vote. If the leaders they have chosen are no longer meeting their needs, they can simply boot them out office in the next election. When the people find this method to either no longer be effective, or to be impossible to attain, another weapon at their disposal is civil disobedience. This is basically where they refuse to obey unjust laws or they use non-violent means to obstruct government operations in an effort to get them to appropriately address the unsatisfied needs of the peole. When this method is either unavailable, perhaps due to an oppressive political climate, or the people loose confidence in its effectiveness, the final tool that is available to the masses is open rebellion, or revolution. Each of these tools have been employed by the American people, and each have their value, but where are we now? Which of these tools should the American employ now in order to improve their station?
        Traditionally, the vote has been the most common method by which the American people have expressed their will. However, that vote has not always been equally accessible to all Americans. It was originally only available to property owning white men, but political necessity soon expanded the franchise to all white men. The Reconstruction Era saw this expanded to African American men, with the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, but the KKK and federal acquiescence saw the end of that by the 1880s. Up to this point, the group that had been most left out, was women. Women fought long and hard, using civil disobedience as their primary weapon, for an additional forty years, and with the passage of the 19th Amendment, women had federal law protecting their right to vote. There is a noticeable racial aspect to this, as African American women, as a result of social conventions, were not included in this victory. From the early 1950s to the late 1960s, African Americans struggled to rectify this inconsistency using civil disobedience to gain their many victories. There, of course, is another weapon that can be used, the court system. The reason I did not include this in the title of this section is because this is not a tool that the average working class or poor American has at their disposal. This is method that requires money, something that the poor workings class people of the United States are usually short of.
        If all else fails, the people are left with revolution as a legitimate method of redressing their grievances, and I do say legitimate. Unfortunately, revolution has not always been used for good means in this country. Of course, there is the fact that this country was founded by a revolution, but the revolution I am talking about the Civil War. This was a war in which the Southern states of this nation were fighting a revolution to protect their right hold African Americans as slaves. This was not a justified use of this tool; however, the present political climate may very warrant the use of revolution. Voting is certainly looking less and less of a viable means to redress our needs. Just look at the constant accusation of voter suppression. They are not unjustified. As more and more states pass laws that are designed to restrict the young, the old, the poor, the non-white, and anyone else that would vote against the present coprotocracy, how can the people be expected to take any stock legitimacy of a vote that they do not believe matters? Further, who can blame them for simply just not voting at all? Further, history has shown us that civil disobedience can only go so far. The traditional Civil Rights Movement was not just fighting for the vote. They were fighting for fairness before the law, desegregation, access to local and federal programs and facilities, fair wages and good jobs, proper representation, and much more, yet those very things, for which many gave their lives, are not properly enjoyed by all Americans to this day. 
        As has been noted, state after state is passing restrictive voting laws, federal legislation has been passed that gives the government the power to violate our rights with impunity, there are more people in jail in this country, per capita, than in any other nation in the world, we are in constant daily conflict with law enforcement, and more and more of our jobs are being shipped out of the country while those that remain pay poverty wages. Voting is not helping. As the American people approach another presidential election, they are at risk of seeing a racist criminal as the nominee of  both parties. Hillary Clinton campaigned for Barry Goldwater, a Republican segregationist, in 1964, helped author legislation that put thousands of minority Americans behind bars in the 1990s, has been indicted on charges of corruption, again in the 1990s, and is presently under investigation by the FBI for the misuse of classified government information.  Donald Trump, on the other hand, is the first presidential candidate to motivate the segregationist vote since the 1960s, and is well known for his shady business practices, which include filing bankruptcy to avoid losing money in bad business deals and creating a fake university from which he funneled thousands of dollars. Further, the candidate that many people do want is not likely to get the nomination because the voter suppression that has been discussed is limiting the people's ability to get him the votes required for him to win. I am, of course, speaking of Bernie Sanders. 
        At the same time, Donald Trump's antics are running him the risk of being abandoned by the Republican establishment. He and Sanders are both populist candidates. What happens if all of their supporters are left unsatisfied? They are not going to vote their troubles away, as that possibility would have just been shattered. They are not going to use civil disobedience, as history has shown that that has not been permanently effective either. They may very resort to violent rebellion, and if they do, they will not be unjustified. Further, calling them criminals would be unjustified. Regardless, of their antics, Trump and Sanders are speaking to a very important problem in the United States. The working class has been abandoned by both of our major political parties, and we are pissed! If we can't vote to change our fate, and we can't do things peacefully through civil disobedience, the courts are certainly not going to help our poor broke condition improve. Our only option to gain the redresses that we desire will be to take up arms and switch the fear factor upon our government, the government that we are supposed to be in charge of, and make what George Carlin once said a reality, "The people should not fear the government. The government should fear the people." Hopefully, there are people in this country that have enough courage to make it happen. I am growing tired of watching people suffer from hunger and unemployment in the wealthiest nation on the planet. If we want to restore the fairness of democracy in this country, revolution may be our last, best, and only hope to do it.


On Gun Violence:  First of all, no matter how cliched this statement is, guns don't kill people, people kill people. The gun is a tool that was invented my man to help make it easier to kill the enemy. If all of the guns in the world were outlawed and confiscated today, tomorrow, stabbing deaths would skyrocket. Whatever the reasons, if someone is driven to kill, they will find a way to do it. The weapon of death will be the item that is the easiest to obtain, whether that be a gun or a kitchen knife. Second, in this spirit, guns, as inanimate objects that cannot function without a human user, are not the cause of gun violence. Again, if there were no guns in the world, we would have a severe problem with knife and sword violence, as was once the case. The causes of gun violence are more complicated than the weapons themselves. Third, owning a gun does not make you a lover and purveyor of violence. A person that owns a gun, but who is well educated in the intricacies of its operation and the ramifications of the power that it represents is less likely to commit murder. In fact, they are less likely to even ever fire the weapon if it is kept for self defense. The only guns that will get shot on the regular are guns used for hunting. Fourth, the government, not Republicans or Democrats, is out to take all of our guns. It is not gun violence that motivates them to pass strict possession laws, it is the fear that an armed populace will grow tired of their weak ass rhetoric and take to the streets with rifles and pistols with the aim of coming for the government's ass. They fear a populace that can fire back much more than they fear random murders. Such actions actually favor their cause of disarming the populace.


        So, if guns are inanimate objects that are incapable of functioning without a human user, and thus, cannot be the cause of gun violence, what is the cause of gun violence? This is a loaded question, but it can be answered in three fairly inclusive ways. The first, and most obvious cause of gun violence, is poverty. A poor person, who feels that they have no other options left in life, is more likely to resort to the use of a gun to get what they need than is someone that has a good job with a living wage, a place to stay, and a stable home environment that is not plagued with money troubles. The second reason is mental illness. Someone who, for whatever reason, has been mentally incapacitated and is not in control of their mental faculties does not need to be in possession of a firearm. If they cannot manage themselves without a gun, they certainly will not be able to manage themselves with a gun, and the person that sells them a gun is just looking for trouble down the road. The trouble is that a person that has been disabled mentally is not necessarily easy to sniff out. This is a problem that must be addressed, and is most likely be resolved by the expansion of background check programs. However, ultimately, stricter background checks are not the answer. The real answer is to solve the problem of mental illness. If we, as a nation, were to actually take the time to give the mentally ill the treatment that they truly need, they would be thousands of times less likely to resort to violent actions with guns.
        The third cause of gun violence is ignorance, or better yet, a complete and total lack of education about the power that a gun can wield when it is in the hands of a user. We spend so much time banning and restricting weapons and so little time educating young people about guns that they never really grasp the implications of what a gun can do when it is in the hands of a person that has even half a brain, or in some cases, no brain at all. Meanwhile, they play video games every day that glorify gun violence and war. So, they are attracted to guns by their games and by the fact that they are taught that they are bad. They want to experience the cool feel from their game, and they want to put their hands on a gun to see what the big deal is about something that is apparently so bad, yet so cool. Next thing you know, someone is dead. Properly educate our people about guns, from youth, and they will be less likely to have accidents or to commit rampages that take innocent lives. Millions of gun owners around the world own and are in personal possession of a gun every day and they are never involved in a violent crime. It is people who live in desperate poverty, who suffer from mental illness, who are ignorant to the operation and power of a gun, or who are a combination of the these three issues who are most likely to commit an act of violence with a gun. We have to solve the root problems to end gun violence. Taking everyone's guns is not the answer. We need to give people livable work, mental healthcare, and proper education. Do these things, and gun violence, in fact, social violence in general, will drop dramatically.
        Finally, to tie this all together, and this is the kicker; in any human society, especially a democratic one, it is vitally important that the civilian population posses weapons, knows their power and significance, and knows how to use them with at least a minimum sense of efficiency. In the earliest part of our nation's existence, this was true because the armed citizenry was this country's first line of defense against foreign invasion. This is why the Founding Fathers granted the civilian population the constitutional right to bear arms. This reality is no less true in the twenty-first century. However, it is just true for a slightly different, but no less important, reason. As the twentieth century showed us, human government can become easily corrupted and extremely destructive. It can turn on its people and criminalize anyone that is a threat to their retention of power. Governments that do not have the broad support of their people, and who are unwilling to give up power, must hold onto that power with the use of brute force. This is what is happening in the United States now. Why else would we be experiencing record occurrences of voter suppression, criminalization of everything that challenges state authority, police brutality, and the formation of a militaristic police state? 
        The purpose of an armed civilian population now is to resist this corruption and oppression. The American people have to be able to show their government that its power is not unlimited. The government has to be made aware that there are limitations to what it can get away with before it will be forced to suffer the consequences. Not only is this our constitutional right, it is our moral duty as citizens to defend the democratic republic that we have inherited. Acquiescence is not an option. If you want to know what happens to people when they refuse to fight state aggression, just look upon the evil of the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. No matter what our individual politics may be, we have to stand up as a people and say, "Enough is enough, God Dammit!" We have to get angry, and we have to defend our rights with our very lives. That is the point of living in a democratic republic. The power to govern does not rest in the hands of the few at the top; but rather, it rests in the hands of the many at the bottom. If we do not do our duty, and we quietly watch as the last vestige of our rights is stripped away, we will wake up one morning in a nation that we cannot recognize and that is so oppressive that death would seem more endurable. Unfortunately, this has already begun, but we do have time to prevent the worst from happening. We still have time to tell tyranny that it is not welcome in this country. However, if we do not act soon, it may be too late. I pray that there are enough well meaning citizens left that have the courage, and the wherewithal, to set aside their petty differences and do what is right for the nation. If there is not, I fear the consequences.....After all, was it not Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who said, "If you have nothing in your life worth dying for, then you have nothing worth living for...?"


To Be Continued.....

Saturday, March 19, 2016

I am Done with Being Made to Feel Like a Social Reject (Part One): Galileo, I Feel Your Pain!


"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilee


        Galileo's championing of heliocentrism and Copericanism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system. He met with opposition from astronomers, who doubted heliocentrism due to the absence of an observed stellar parallax. The matter was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, and they concluded that it could only be supported as a possibility, not as an established fact. Galileo later defended his views in "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems," which appeared to attack Pope Urban VIII and thus alienated him and the Jesuits, who had both supported Galileo up until this point. He was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy," forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. It was while Galileo was under house arrest that he wrote one of his most well known works, "Two New Sciences." Here he summarized the work he had done some forty years earlier, on the two sciences now called kinematics and strength of materials.
        I am, by no means, attempting to claim that I am or should be considered an intellectual equal to Galileo. What I am saying, however, is that in my own modest sense, I understand how he must have felt. After spending a great deal of his time and energy doing exhaustive research on a field of interest that set his mind and heart ablaze, he was rejected by the world. After years of research on a subject that he felt would change the world and the way we understand it, which it did, he was locked up in his own home, made to wear the label of a heretic, and silenced. This is the way that I have been made to feel for most of my life. My views, and my actions in defense of those views, have garnered me titles like, heretic, race traitor, weirdo, psycho, dumbass, pussy, pacifist, degenerate, menace, reject, nigger, radical, threat to society, bastard, loser, fool, reprobate, coward, villain, and countless others. I have been tossed out of social circles, banned from social activities, fired from jobs, and even pushed out of academic circles, among many other things. This has all led to the point where I feel more comfortable alone than in the company of others, and all because in exchange for learning about the world and making my own conclusions about what I see, hear, and feel, I have rejected most all of the programming that each of us is fed as we grow up.
        So, what follows is my humble and most contrite effort to emulate Galileo, who in his old age, knowing that death would soon greet him, offered the world one last little piece of defiance. Though I am expecting to have many more years ahead of me, I will, to the best of my ability, outline my understanding of the world in a topical manner. If, afterwards, I am still considered an apostate, then so be it, I will wear the title with pride. I no longer feel obligated to carry my differences as a burden to be scourged from my soul, but rather, I now feel obligated, as my mother once said, " to lay all of cards out on the table." I am not going to allow myself to be miserable just because some people do not like me for my stance on the issues. Their dislike for me is not going to alter my future, rather it will only encourage me to do and say more. Now, as a qualifier, if any person's views of me have been perpetuated by my inability to properly explain myself, I offer this piece as clarification. Let them, then, make up their minds for, with the burden removed from shoulders, as Buck Owens once said, "I am who I am, I am what I am, I do what I do, and I ain't never going to do it any different. I don't care who likes and who don't." Take the words for what they mean, nothing more, nothing less.


On Mental Health:  I must admit that I am able to speak on this topic using personal experiences to support my statements. In the spirit of spirit of openness, I say this because I have been diagnosed with Bi-Polar Disorder, with Depression and Hyper-Anxiety. As defined by the National Institute on Mental Health, Bipolar disorder, also known as manic-depressive illness, is a brain disorder that causes unusual shifts in mood, energy, activity levels, and the ability to carry out day-to-day tasks. Symptoms of bipolar disorder are severe. They are different from the normal ups and downs that everyone goes through from time to time. Bipolar disorder symptoms can result in damaged relationships, poor job or school performance, and even suicide. But bipolar disorder can be treated, and people with this illness can lead full and productive lives. This disorder has led me to have what amounts to two faces. I have a face that I put on for the world, and I have the real face that I wear when I am alone stewing in my own self loathing. It is a very difficult thing to overcome and makes one more inclined, for comfort's sake, to shut people out of their life rather than risk the pain of rejection, misunderstanding, or betrayal. A great deal of internal confusion and chaos must be overcome for someone with this issue to get overly involved with other people. The mental work that is required to overcome the disorder is not properly understood by those who do not have the problem. I can say, from personal experience, most people would not and do not have the mental strength needed to do it. Unfortunately, while a person is in the midst of this struggle, their loved ones are usually the ones that suffer the brunt of their outbursts. I have my own litany of broken relationships to support this notion.
        Having made that admission, I now say this: I, and anyone else who has this disorder, are no different than anyone else because we have to deal with this issue. I am just as capable of contributing to the advancement of humanity as anyone else. All this means is that for whatever reason, my brain operates a tad bid differently than most people. The disturbance, as I like to call it, causes to me see and interact with the world and the people occupying it, in the extreme, with very little room left for any sort of middle ground. Neither does this make me a threat to society, as some have suggested to me in my lifetime. I, more than others, maybe, was lucky to have people in my family, who, while they never went to the doctor for the issue, knew they had the problem and taught me to deal with it using techniques that they had developed over entire lifetimes. It is in adulthood that I have sought professional help to manage those symptoms that have proven too strong for me defeat alone. I was trained to adapt to my environment, to observe my behavior and adjust myself when I know I am acting out character, and to regulate myself through meditation, reflection, and education. Not everyone has the fortune to get this kind of guidance. They must and should not be stigmatized for that. We, as a whole society, need to express the same compassion for their condition that was shown to me when I was only a child. Bi-Polar Disorder is not something that one contracts because of irresponsible living. It is something that a person is born with, and something that people can be taught to live with, given the appropriate attention. Think on that the next time you label someone crazy.


On Faith and Religion:  First of all, I do not, never will, and never truly have ever believed in the religious figure known as Jesus the Christ. This may come as a surprise to those people that are closest to me, but it is the blunt and very real truth. It is time that they realized that anything I said, did, or professed to believe in at the time, this being the pre-adulthood, I said, did, and professed in my efforts to receive social acceptance and to try to bring order to the chaos that was going on in my head. I do not wish to hurt them, but I must be honest. Otherwise, I would be betraying myself. This revelation, if you will, applies to the holy book of the Christian religion, as well. I do not, never will, and never truly have believed the Bible to be anything other than a cleverly written instruction manual on how to manipulate the masses. This means, of course, that I also do not see it to be the unconstestable word of some invisible god; but rather, I see it to be nothing more that what it truly is, the creation of men seeking to control other men. Again, the many hours that I spent pouring through its pages were spent in search of a way to explain why I felt the way I did inside. There are only portions of the text that ever resonated with me, and I have since found, through even more exhaustive research that those passages are plagiarisms, misuses, and poor translations of much older texts.
        Having made that blunt declaration, let it now be known that I am not an atheist, and I actually do have a great respect for religion and what it does and has done for the human condition. I pray daily, but I do not pray to a god that I cannot see. I, like our ancient progenitors, pray to my ancestors. I ask them daily for the courage, strength, and understanding that I need to live the kind of life that will live up to their expectations. For, I know that they did the same in their lifetimes, and it is my fervent hope that in this life, I will be able to live up to the many great deeds done by my noble forefathers. I also have faith. However, my faith is not in things unseen. My faith is in the people I care about, in myself, and in the capacity of the human species to overcome great adversity to achieve  ever greater, amazing, and awe inspiring feats. I have a big problem with being asked to believe in something that cannot be proven through rational means. I find it insulting to my intelligence and a complete abandonment of reason. Such efforts stink more of manipulation and social control than they do of honest efforts to expand human spiritual understanding. I also have a deity. My deity is all around me, inside me, and encompasses all aspects of my life. My deity is much greater than I could ever hope to be. My deity is the planet that gave birth to me and my ancestors, Earth. She gave me life, and one day, my essence will return to her to be recycled, while my flesh will melt back into the ground to feed the next cycle of life. These are things that I can touch, prove, and make reasonable sense of. They are marked by the need to maintain balance and reason. They do not ask me to abandon my intelligence, rather, they encourage me to never cease expanding it.
        Now, like I said, I do have a great respect for the role that religion has played and now plays in human society. In our ancient past, when we had not yet developed the advanced sciences that have now vastly expanded our understanding of the world that we live in, religion was the mode through which we gained our understanding of the world around us and all of the processes and occurrences of daily life. It explained how the seasons turned, it explained why lightening lit up the night sky, it explained why floods happened, it explained why people were born and then died, and much much more. Further, it bound people together into communities of individuals that could share each other's company and experiences with one another. It gave people an avenue to express their spiritual connection with one another and the world around them, something that is vital to the well being of every human to this very day. It helped them retain hope for the future in a world that seemed to constantly invent new and improved ways to destroy hope. Leading on that, religion still plays these roles, and that is a very good thing. However, religion is no longer needed to explain the functions of the world. We can use the scientific method to understand the world and its processes now. Religion's sole purview should be the spiritual well being of the people and nothing more. This leads to my only real issue with religion. When religion uses fear, violence, and coercion to keep people in ignorance, to manipulate societies, and to perpetuate systems of oppression, hatred, and degradation, I have a very serious problem with them. This is why I have such a big issue with the modern incarnation of religions like Christianity and its cousin religions. They do not uplift the people, but rather, keep them in constant fear of what they do not understand, instead of teaching them to seek the unknown and then to conquer it. I am not a fool, and I will not allow myself to be treated like one. Neither should any human that posses even a single speck of good sense.


On Race and Equality:  Race is not real. It is made up. It is a modern artificial social construct designed to maintain a rigid system of oppression and degradation at the expense of a group of persons deemed to be less worthy of social recognition by a ruling elite that seeks to maintain their status as the dominant social, moral, and legal power in a society. The reality is that Race has not a single logical reason to even exist. It serves only to divide a single species against itself, but for the sake of argument, I will use the word race here. I argue that there is only one real Race, and that is the Human Race. I, and all the people of the world, are members of that Race. The division of this race into separate races that can be placed on a hierarchical scale of social privilege has no basis in scientific fact. There is literally no genetic difference between a person with pale skin and a person with dark skin. Science has proven that the differences in skin color in our species are determined by the environment in which a specific group of people has lived for long periods of time. People who have lived in warmer climates that get an abundance of annual sunlight tend to be darker than people who have lived in colder climates that do not receive an abundance of annual sunlight. Thus, skin color is an environmental adaptation, nothing more. This basically means that by  nature, we are all created equally.
        I have shown, using some basic science, aka natural law, and a brief understanding of social construct theory to identify race as a false precept, which is used by the powers in a society to create social structures that establish inequality and maintain oppressive social orders. Now, let us turn to mathematical law to offer further evidence of the purely fallacious nature of race in the modern era. The most sturdy mathematical treatise that we can draw from is Euclid's, "Elements: Axioms and Common Notions." This two thousand year old book is a collection of definitions, postulates, axioms, propositions, theorems and constructions, and mathematical proofs of those propositions. The first law in this most heavily used and historically significant mathematical textbook is that two objects, or things, which are equal to the same object, or thing, are self evidently equal to each other. Let us, thus, combine this with the understanding that we have gained of race in this little exercise. If nature has determined that all people, we will use black and white for the purpose of this argument, are equal to her, then using Euclid's first law of mathematical reasoning, they are self evidently equally to one another. Essentially, there is no difference, biologically or logically, between a white person and a black person, save for the natural environment that their people have lived in for an extended period of time. Again, race is a fallacy! The modern conception of race has no basis in scientific, aka natural, or mathematical law or reasoning. It is a fallacious creation of a social elite class, designed to maintain an oppressive social order that values one type of person over another, based solely on the biologically insignificant color of their skin, all in an effort to retain those people, against their will, for their forced labor and economic output.
        Now, let us look to history, as I have already done in the past. The first slaves to live within the borders of what would later be the United States of America arrived on the North American continent in the early 1620s. They were African warriors, women, and children that had been captured in battle and sold off to Portuguese slavers by their king's enemies. They were from West Africa along the coast near the River Gambia. They were brought in as an experiment to work the expanding tobacco fields in the colony of Virginia. Initially, they were treated as indentured servants and many were granted their freedom after a specified term of service. However, by the late 1640s, just over twenty years since the first slave had stepped foot on what would become American soil, they started to outnumber whites. These whites, worried for their safety, and seeking to secure a permanent and free labor source began to enact 'white' laws. These laws, combined with a series of pro white court cases, placed Africans at the bottom of the social order and made their condition of slavery perpetual. Eventually, this condition was even extended to children born to slaves. This was a unique atrocity that not even the Romans had practiced. It was made possible for the first time for a person to be born into slavery, to work their whole lives as a slave, and to die as a slave, never once having experienced the glories of freedom. This system made it possible for whites to groom slaves, from childhood, to accept their station, assist in its expansion, and work without complaint to perpetuate the system. So, what we have here is the point in our nation's history when the 'white' and 'black' races were invented out of thin air. Prior to this era, these designations did not exist. We can, thus, say that the modern conception of race is a false dichotomy that has no basis in historical fact, whatsoever.
       Having shown in three ways that race is a blasphemous lie perpetuated by a system of corrupt leaders whose sole purpose is economic, social, and political gain; please, if you will, allow me to offer my feelings on the issue. First, I am not and will never allow anyone to call me a white man! I am, before anything else, a human being. I do not wish to be identified with an artificial social construct that is responsible for the destruction of millions of lives around the world. The very thought is repugnant to me. Second, I am the descendant of political exiles. The Halliburton family came to the American colonies in 1746 after the Battle of Culloden, in the last war for Scottish Independence. They were sent here by King George II as enemies of the state, in place of execution. The last two surviving sons of the last Halliburton to be the Baron of Tweed, David and William, made sure that some two hundred years after they arrived here, their progeny would remember that. This makes me a political exile also, and a proud Son of Scotland! Third, through my birth father, I am what Jim Crow Louisiana would have called an Octoroon, in that I am one-eighth African American. I have even had the great fortune to meet my grandmother on his side, Mama Jefferson. She has since passed on to the next life, but I am proud to have been able to call her Nana. Fourth, I have a fricking soul, and I do not wish for it to be stained with the inherited crimes of four hundred plus years of theft, rape, and murder. Fifth, I am an American Citizen, and as an American Citizen, it is my sacred duty to defend the rights of anyone who finds themselves the victim of unjustified discrimination in this country. Therefore, I commit myself to that mission. 


        Sixth; and most vitally important, I have a very clear message to deliver to all those paleskins, not including mindful European Americans, whose purpose it is to fight for the superiority of the 'white' race. I am referring to those white people in, or supportive of, organizations like the Ku Klux Klan, the White Knights, the Neo-Nazis, and the like; I am not your friend! In fact, if you push me too far, you will find that I am your worst enemy! Do not push me, do not ask me for help, do not look to me for confirmation of your ignorance! If we meet in the street, and I find you violating the rights of my fellow Americans for no other reason than because they are non-white, or for any other reason under the sun, I will meet upon you, tenfold, the same treatment that you sought to deliver to them. I will violate your rights and never think twice about it. You are a disgrace to humanity, and a blatant violation of natural law. If ever there were human beings who had willingly sacrificed their right to exist, it is people like you. You disgust me, and if I ever get the opportunity, I will make you pay dearly for your willful ignorance. Pray that day never comes; for if it does, my hands will be washed red with your blood!


To be Continued.....