Marxism is essentially a pro-labor social stance. Now I see a lot of people talk as if that is a bad thing. Since when is it wrong to be a laborer and be pro-labor?
The majority of Americans are laborers and are working class, so then is it to say they are "marxist" for looking out for their own benefit? Didn't Ayn Rand call it "rational self-interest"?
Why is it okay for those with means to look out for their own benefit but the majority of the nation should not?
For instance House Speaker Boehner said "we listened to the American people." <- is that a marxist statement? According to most of you it is because whenever someone is "listening" or "in tune" with the labor class it is marxist.
When politicians run on platforms of helping to create jobs what do you think that is? Its telling the majority of Americans [the labor class] that they are looking to create work for you. Is that marxism?
If your in doubt ask yourself this: Why would the elite class care about job creation? They wouldn't be elites if they didn't already have money.
I have done a lot of independent studying as of late [before school started] and I came to the conclusion that America is thoroughly Anti-populist.
Meaning they hate the commonfolk which are the majority of the nation. Now where do I get this? Well you have people who are staunchly anti anything potentially "collectivist", when collectivism is not wrong.
This country was built on collective efforts! Where did this come from? I say the 50s, 60s, 70s because there were raucous populist uprisings. Workers, minorities, gays, etc during these times, but not only in America but in other nations as well [like China, for instance].
So now the 80s hit and when Reagan kicks in everybody hates the working man now. I mean people are so hell bent on riding the coat tails of the elites that they actually put them on a pedestal above themselves.
Look at the prison system.
Overwhelmingly poor, working class whites and minorities. Financially hierarchical systems of legality, medical, financial, political and social systems despite the majority of the country being poor or working class (what John Edwards has referred to as "Two Americas"). Why is this allowed?
Wasn't the purpose of building this nation was to NOT have elites? In my opinion the biggest collectivists are the ones who claim to hate it.
They are the ones who join political parties, lobbying and action committees yet they tell you how bad collectivism is.
They say a corporation only has responsibility to its stockholders but what are stockholders if not a collection of individuals?
The hypocrisy is amazing one you think about it.
The whole thing is a mindf-ck. They repeatedly believe that the well off will eventually sprinkle something down and the rest have to just wait and see, maybe scratch something for themselves from what is left. Meanwhile they are getting pumped (through heavy taxation) to feed the government beast.
Then you have the perversion of values where people actually get themselves tricked into thinking its honorable to offer up more of your money so he can keep more of his. He's telling you government is evil, and government is the devil etc and that corporations are beholden to profit so they have a stake in success.
When that too is a lie, they will just get their government buddies to sign off on a little bit of help, but these same people say government is evil and is stopping us from making more jobs.
Enough with the lies and propaganda:
"...truth is, we still live in a country where there are two different Americas...
... one, for all of those people who have lived the American dream and don't have to worry, and another for most Americans, everybody else who struggle to make ends meet every single day. It doesn't have to be that way.
We can build one America where we no longer have two health care systems: one for families who get the best health care money can by, and then one for everybody else rationed out by insurance companies, drug companies, HMOs...
We shouldn't have two public school systems in this country: one for the most affluent communities, and one for everybody else..."-
John Edwards [2004]
I do not support John Edwards but he was right then and he's right today. The difference is that in that speech he was talking about uniting the "Two Americas" but in the 7 years that has passed the breach has grown exponentially.
Time to stop the friendly fire and become "rationally self-interested".
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Saturday, October 22, 2011
The Innocence Project
The Innocence Project is a collection of defense attorneys that specialize in post-conviction services. They help inmates who have questionable convictions seek new trials or even total exoneration. They do this by carefully researching each case looking for improprieties. These improprieties come in many forms but the innocence project has narrowed them down to a select few that are the most common:
*Bad Lawyering (lazy, ineffective defense attorneys)
*Prosecutor/Police Misconduct
*Junk Science (non-scientific evidence being used as scientific evidence or questionable science)
*Eyewitness Misidentification
*False Admissions
*Questionable informants
The Innocence Project also provides reforms that, if applied would limit or eliminate these improprieties from taking place.
On the heels of Troy Davis' execution many should see the work of the Innocence Project. In Davis' case a large majority of the witnesses either recanted or their testimony was in some other way compromised. All this has lead in the now widespread belief that Troy Davis was indeed innocent. The only people that truly believe he was guilty was the family of the victim and the prosecutor. Davis sat in prison for over 20 years and even though his case never caught national headlines until right before his execution, it has raised a crucial debate about the criminal justice system and capital punishment.
The Innocence Project has had many cases overturned, and the convict exonerated and very few of these cases ever made national headlines. The thought then becomes that anything which raises questions about the belief in the legal system, a belief mind you that must be there if the system is to work, is ignored or minimized. The Innocence Project's work, Troy Davis' witness recants and contradictions are just two of the things that cause great, widespread disbelief.
Despite all the efforts of the ACLU to prevent Davis' execution it still took place, despite all the efforts of the Innocence Project many men and women who are truly innocent are executed or still sit in prison, all for the sake of protecting the sanctity of a disturbingly unbalanced system.
To learn more about the Innocence Project check out their website:
http://www.innocenceproject.org
*Bad Lawyering (lazy, ineffective defense attorneys)
*Prosecutor/Police Misconduct
*Junk Science (non-scientific evidence being used as scientific evidence or questionable science)
*Eyewitness Misidentification
*False Admissions
*Questionable informants
The Innocence Project also provides reforms that, if applied would limit or eliminate these improprieties from taking place.
On the heels of Troy Davis' execution many should see the work of the Innocence Project. In Davis' case a large majority of the witnesses either recanted or their testimony was in some other way compromised. All this has lead in the now widespread belief that Troy Davis was indeed innocent. The only people that truly believe he was guilty was the family of the victim and the prosecutor. Davis sat in prison for over 20 years and even though his case never caught national headlines until right before his execution, it has raised a crucial debate about the criminal justice system and capital punishment.
The Innocence Project has had many cases overturned, and the convict exonerated and very few of these cases ever made national headlines. The thought then becomes that anything which raises questions about the belief in the legal system, a belief mind you that must be there if the system is to work, is ignored or minimized. The Innocence Project's work, Troy Davis' witness recants and contradictions are just two of the things that cause great, widespread disbelief.
Despite all the efforts of the ACLU to prevent Davis' execution it still took place, despite all the efforts of the Innocence Project many men and women who are truly innocent are executed or still sit in prison, all for the sake of protecting the sanctity of a disturbingly unbalanced system.
To learn more about the Innocence Project check out their website:
http://www.innocenceproject.org
Pinochet: Capitalist Hero?
In 2006, a blogger for the Von Mises Institute (a very pro-capitalist organization) wrote a blog heralding former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet for saving Chile' from their democratically elected President Salvador Allende and his impending communist state.
Allende, a Marxist and socialist won Chile's elections and began a campaign of nationalizing industry to heal Chile's ailing economy. The blogger, compared Allende's agenda to that of former Russian dictator Joseph Stalin. The coup lead by Pinochet, stormed Chile's White House. In what some call a "civil war", others refer to as a coup de grace in the end Allende killed himself and Pinochet took power. After taking power Pinochet punished Allende supporters, trade unionists, socialists etc brutal by using torture and murder.
The argument being made by the blogger is that although thousands of people were murdered, tortured and/or just plain evaporated into thin air by Pinochet's brutal regime, its a small price to pay because death tolls would have been worse under Allende, even though there is no proof to make such a claim.
The writer even goes as far as to say that had there been a Pinochet in Germany to stop Hitler the country would have been better off. Obviously this is to say Allende was Chile's Hitler, or on the road to becoming Hitler-esque leader [despite having zero proof of such]. Now why would they say this? I mean who cares? Well they do.
Pinochet was a capitalist who learned from Milton Freeman and the famed Chicago school of Economics and believed in free-markets and that he "liberated" Chile from Allende's socialism with the help of the United States Government, foreign corporations and powerful foreign economists [all capitalist economists by the way]. The sad part is that If this was a socialist website touting Che Guevara people would hit the ceiling.
To get a sense of how ridiculous this blog is this is a quote directly from the blog itself: "General Pinochet was thus one of the most extraordinary dictators in history, a dictator who stood for major limits on the power of the state, who imposed such limits, and who sought to maintain such limits".
You honestly want people to believe there is a such thing as a benevolent dictator?!  A dictator who limits his own powers? Yet, they willfully admit he murdered and tortured people? How utterly retarded.
Allende, a Marxist and socialist won Chile's elections and began a campaign of nationalizing industry to heal Chile's ailing economy. The blogger, compared Allende's agenda to that of former Russian dictator Joseph Stalin. The coup lead by Pinochet, stormed Chile's White House. In what some call a "civil war", others refer to as a coup de grace in the end Allende killed himself and Pinochet took power. After taking power Pinochet punished Allende supporters, trade unionists, socialists etc brutal by using torture and murder.
The argument being made by the blogger is that although thousands of people were murdered, tortured and/or just plain evaporated into thin air by Pinochet's brutal regime, its a small price to pay because death tolls would have been worse under Allende, even though there is no proof to make such a claim.
The writer even goes as far as to say that had there been a Pinochet in Germany to stop Hitler the country would have been better off. Obviously this is to say Allende was Chile's Hitler, or on the road to becoming Hitler-esque leader [despite having zero proof of such]. Now why would they say this? I mean who cares? Well they do.
Pinochet was a capitalist who learned from Milton Freeman and the famed Chicago school of Economics and believed in free-markets and that he "liberated" Chile from Allende's socialism with the help of the United States Government, foreign corporations and powerful foreign economists [all capitalist economists by the way]. The sad part is that If this was a socialist website touting Che Guevara people would hit the ceiling.
To get a sense of how ridiculous this blog is this is a quote directly from the blog itself: "General Pinochet was thus one of the most extraordinary dictators in history, a dictator who stood for major limits on the power of the state, who imposed such limits, and who sought to maintain such limits".
You honestly want people to believe there is a such thing as a benevolent dictator?!  A dictator who limits his own powers? Yet, they willfully admit he murdered and tortured people? How utterly retarded.
The Hit on Gaddafi
Preface--[I am not happy Gaddafi is dead, I don't know enough about him to make a judgment]
Wolf Blitzer on CNN said 2 things that stuck out to me. 1- "Are the American people going to reimbursed for their help in overthrowing Gaddafi" and 2- "Libya is a wealthy country, a very oil rich country and now they have an opportunity to do 'good things' for their people".
What this tells me is that the U.S. government will demand repayment for helping overthrow Gaddafi, effectively putting Libya in their debt [along with the inevitable puppet leader]. This also tells me to expect a raid on Libya's oil by American/"NATO" countries and corporations which will also trash the economy of Libya.
Now I don't know much about Libya but I DO know about America's government and corporations and I don't think the Libyans will like living under the thumb of Western economic colonialism.
Anyway I noticed that NATO was given credit for knocking off Gaddafi and in my personal interest looked up NATO membership.
I happened to stumble across some info about Libya's economy as I was looking to see what could come from Gaddafi's death. And this is what I found:
NATO & The EU each share 21 members. Libya is the biggest exporter to the EU. It supplies approximately 98.5% of the EU's energy. Their agreements came up to 28.8B last year. This year was supposed to be the re-negotiations of their agreements.
Now it came also to my attention that Gaddafi intended to do 2 things: 1-Unify Africa under 1 government (he was voted as leader of the African Union in 2009) and 2-begin trading oil solely for gold. Neither of which is favorable to his trade partners or the world at large. Africa is already very wealthy in gold and oil, so trading solely in precious resources works in Africa's favor.
Well considering it was time to re-negotiate with the EU on trade terms AND his oil for gold plan, it is really coincidental that Gaddafi started having "problems" that lead to the suspension of those negotiations earlier this year.
These "problems" [rebels] began being aided by NATO [the VAST majority of which are his LARGEST trade partners]. France, Italy & Britain who were the 3 major NATO nations involved (also 3 major nations in the EU) killed off their #1 exporter of energy, but for what purpose?
Its obvious right? Why negotiate when they can use force to take the whole basket? Essentially, this is Iraq pt. II and Gaddafi is the new Saddam Hussein. Was Gaddafi a dictator? Of course but so was Hosni Mubarak (former Egyptian Prime Minister) but NATO didn't get involved there. Kim Jong Ill (Prime Minister of North Korea) is a dictator nobody gets involved there. There's a civil war in Bahrain, yet NATO & the United Nations don't get involved...wonder why.
My opinion is that this is a well calculated, mafia style hit. An economic hit to be more precise. Planned by the United States, France, Italy and Britain and their oil corporations looking to take advantage of another oil rich nation that looked to use the capitalist ideology against them (Saddam tried it in the 80s and was invaded in the 90s for his efforts).
Bloodshed over oil must stop. This blog is not about absolving Gaddafi or Saddam from the evil they have done but it is about how the governments of various nations believing that the people are stupid and so complacent that we will rejoice at the death of a dictator even under false pretenses.
Wolf Blitzer on CNN said 2 things that stuck out to me. 1- "Are the American people going to reimbursed for their help in overthrowing Gaddafi" and 2- "Libya is a wealthy country, a very oil rich country and now they have an opportunity to do 'good things' for their people".
What this tells me is that the U.S. government will demand repayment for helping overthrow Gaddafi, effectively putting Libya in their debt [along with the inevitable puppet leader]. This also tells me to expect a raid on Libya's oil by American/"NATO" countries and corporations which will also trash the economy of Libya.
Now I don't know much about Libya but I DO know about America's government and corporations and I don't think the Libyans will like living under the thumb of Western economic colonialism.
Anyway I noticed that NATO was given credit for knocking off Gaddafi and in my personal interest looked up NATO membership.
I happened to stumble across some info about Libya's economy as I was looking to see what could come from Gaddafi's death. And this is what I found:
NATO & The EU each share 21 members. Libya is the biggest exporter to the EU. It supplies approximately 98.5% of the EU's energy. Their agreements came up to 28.8B last year. This year was supposed to be the re-negotiations of their agreements.
Now it came also to my attention that Gaddafi intended to do 2 things: 1-Unify Africa under 1 government (he was voted as leader of the African Union in 2009) and 2-begin trading oil solely for gold. Neither of which is favorable to his trade partners or the world at large. Africa is already very wealthy in gold and oil, so trading solely in precious resources works in Africa's favor.
Well considering it was time to re-negotiate with the EU on trade terms AND his oil for gold plan, it is really coincidental that Gaddafi started having "problems" that lead to the suspension of those negotiations earlier this year.
These "problems" [rebels] began being aided by NATO [the VAST majority of which are his LARGEST trade partners]. France, Italy & Britain who were the 3 major NATO nations involved (also 3 major nations in the EU) killed off their #1 exporter of energy, but for what purpose?
Its obvious right? Why negotiate when they can use force to take the whole basket? Essentially, this is Iraq pt. II and Gaddafi is the new Saddam Hussein. Was Gaddafi a dictator? Of course but so was Hosni Mubarak (former Egyptian Prime Minister) but NATO didn't get involved there. Kim Jong Ill (Prime Minister of North Korea) is a dictator nobody gets involved there. There's a civil war in Bahrain, yet NATO & the United Nations don't get involved...wonder why.
My opinion is that this is a well calculated, mafia style hit. An economic hit to be more precise. Planned by the United States, France, Italy and Britain and their oil corporations looking to take advantage of another oil rich nation that looked to use the capitalist ideology against them (Saddam tried it in the 80s and was invaded in the 90s for his efforts).
Bloodshed over oil must stop. This blog is not about absolving Gaddafi or Saddam from the evil they have done but it is about how the governments of various nations believing that the people are stupid and so complacent that we will rejoice at the death of a dictator even under false pretenses.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Terrorism Over Tripoli: Howard Zinn, Ronald Reagan, Lupe Fiasco & Barack Obama
"Does a Western Democracy have a better right to kill innocent people than a Middle Eastern dictatorship?"-Howard Zinn
May 2011. Controversial and talented hip-hop star Lupe Fiasco seemingly shocked the world when he called President Barack Obama a terrorist. Lupe's comments were based on current American foreign policy which has caused millions of casualties in at least 3 different nations: Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya. Lupe's words were quoted as: "My fight against terrorism, to me, the biggest terrorist is Obama in the United States of America. I'm trying to fight the terrorism that's actually causing the other forms of terrorism. You know, the root cause of terrorism is the stuff the U.S. government allows to happen. The foreign policies that we have in place in different countries that inspire people to become terrorists."
Lupe didn't just criticize foreign policy but President Obama directly with his comments saying that Obama was the “To me, the biggest terrorist is Obama in the United States of America,” biggest terrorist". But the rapper didn't stop with calling the president a terrorist, he also criticized voting saying that "“I don’t vote. I don’t get involved in politics. Because it’s meaningless, to be honest." Both of which are sentiments I can agree with. Obama and the United States Government are terrorists, theres no doubt that the people of Libya and Iraq also agree, they live with the terror. The indiscriminate bombing of Libyan towns and citizens in Tripoli. One such bombing killed Qaddafi's son and his grand children these are not the acts of heroes but of murderers who now because of these "attack drones" are no better than Qaddafi himself. Lupe caught plenty of flack for his commentary specifically from the Black community that supports Obama but in a strange twist, he also catches hell from the Fox Newz crowd who despise Obama and was referred to as a "pinhead" by Bill O'Reilly (which means "you made it" and that you must have said something right).
April 1986. Libya leader Muommar Qaddafi's regime bombs a discotheque in West Berlin, only two people died--but one was an American soldier. This prompted then-President Ronald Reagan to commence bombing and other aerial strikes in Libya. The outrage that followed the strikes, forced historian Howard Zinn to pen a piece entitled "Terrorism Over Tripoli" (which this blog borrows said title). In the project Zinn blasts Reagan with the same fervor Lupe uses on Obama. Zinn also calls Reagan a terrorist and says that Reagan's terrorism far outweighs Qaddafi. But Zinn takes things a step further than Lupe in some regards.
Zinn writes "we live in a world in which we are asked to make moral choices between one kind of terrorism over another. The government, the press, the politicians, are trying to convince us that Ronald Reagan's terrorism is morally superior to Muommar Qaddafi's" (p. 64). Similar to today, where we are constantly reminded of the Lockerbie bombing, and how Qaddafi is attempting squash rebel groups in Libya with force, we miss or rather are taught to ignore how much force is used to stop Qaddafi. Zinn continues "modern technology has outdistanced the Bible. 'An eye for an eye' has become a hundred eyes for an eye, a hundred babies for a baby" (p.65). Lupe like Zinn sees that terrorism and war go in a cycle. America attacks Libya today in retaliation for Qaddafi's attacks on his own people, America attacked Libya then in retaliation for Qaddafi's attack in Berlin. But regardless of what is in retaliation for what there are always innocents left to suffer. It is these innocents and their families that become terrorists in their own right over time. The "eye for an eye" mantra on a much smaller scale and retaliation being carried out by smaller cells of peasants. At the end of the day all of the above are terrorists: Moummar Qaddafi, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. They have all killed innocent people for one reason or another none of which can be excused, therefore, Lupe Fiasco was no more wrong to mention this than Howard Zinn was 25 years earlier. The "patriots" a.k.a the flag wavers can attempt to claim any moral high ground they wish but truth its truth.
Lupe Fiasco dared to dissent, he refused to be a flag waver or even to take "I like Obama because he's Black like me" road. He did the right thing and he made the statement that needed to be made and now I will close this piece with an important statement by Howard Zinn: "the most cherished element of our democracy--the pluralism of dissenting voices, the marketplace of contending ideas--seems to disappear at a time like this, when the bombs fall, the flag waves and everyone scurries" (p. 46).
May 2011. Controversial and talented hip-hop star Lupe Fiasco seemingly shocked the world when he called President Barack Obama a terrorist. Lupe's comments were based on current American foreign policy which has caused millions of casualties in at least 3 different nations: Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya. Lupe's words were quoted as: "My fight against terrorism, to me, the biggest terrorist is Obama in the United States of America. I'm trying to fight the terrorism that's actually causing the other forms of terrorism. You know, the root cause of terrorism is the stuff the U.S. government allows to happen. The foreign policies that we have in place in different countries that inspire people to become terrorists."
Lupe didn't just criticize foreign policy but President Obama directly with his comments saying that Obama was the “To me, the biggest terrorist is Obama in the United States of America,” biggest terrorist". But the rapper didn't stop with calling the president a terrorist, he also criticized voting saying that "“I don’t vote. I don’t get involved in politics. Because it’s meaningless, to be honest." Both of which are sentiments I can agree with. Obama and the United States Government are terrorists, theres no doubt that the people of Libya and Iraq also agree, they live with the terror. The indiscriminate bombing of Libyan towns and citizens in Tripoli. One such bombing killed Qaddafi's son and his grand children these are not the acts of heroes but of murderers who now because of these "attack drones" are no better than Qaddafi himself. Lupe caught plenty of flack for his commentary specifically from the Black community that supports Obama but in a strange twist, he also catches hell from the Fox Newz crowd who despise Obama and was referred to as a "pinhead" by Bill O'Reilly (which means "you made it" and that you must have said something right).
April 1986. Libya leader Muommar Qaddafi's regime bombs a discotheque in West Berlin, only two people died--but one was an American soldier. This prompted then-President Ronald Reagan to commence bombing and other aerial strikes in Libya. The outrage that followed the strikes, forced historian Howard Zinn to pen a piece entitled "Terrorism Over Tripoli" (which this blog borrows said title). In the project Zinn blasts Reagan with the same fervor Lupe uses on Obama. Zinn also calls Reagan a terrorist and says that Reagan's terrorism far outweighs Qaddafi. But Zinn takes things a step further than Lupe in some regards.
Zinn writes "we live in a world in which we are asked to make moral choices between one kind of terrorism over another. The government, the press, the politicians, are trying to convince us that Ronald Reagan's terrorism is morally superior to Muommar Qaddafi's" (p. 64). Similar to today, where we are constantly reminded of the Lockerbie bombing, and how Qaddafi is attempting squash rebel groups in Libya with force, we miss or rather are taught to ignore how much force is used to stop Qaddafi. Zinn continues "modern technology has outdistanced the Bible. 'An eye for an eye' has become a hundred eyes for an eye, a hundred babies for a baby" (p.65). Lupe like Zinn sees that terrorism and war go in a cycle. America attacks Libya today in retaliation for Qaddafi's attacks on his own people, America attacked Libya then in retaliation for Qaddafi's attack in Berlin. But regardless of what is in retaliation for what there are always innocents left to suffer. It is these innocents and their families that become terrorists in their own right over time. The "eye for an eye" mantra on a much smaller scale and retaliation being carried out by smaller cells of peasants. At the end of the day all of the above are terrorists: Moummar Qaddafi, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. They have all killed innocent people for one reason or another none of which can be excused, therefore, Lupe Fiasco was no more wrong to mention this than Howard Zinn was 25 years earlier. The "patriots" a.k.a the flag wavers can attempt to claim any moral high ground they wish but truth its truth.
Lupe Fiasco dared to dissent, he refused to be a flag waver or even to take "I like Obama because he's Black like me" road. He did the right thing and he made the statement that needed to be made and now I will close this piece with an important statement by Howard Zinn: "the most cherished element of our democracy--the pluralism of dissenting voices, the marketplace of contending ideas--seems to disappear at a time like this, when the bombs fall, the flag waves and everyone scurries" (p. 46).
Monday, May 16, 2011
The Orweillian-Bradburian Society
I am an avid reader, that much can be ascertained by the blogs themselves. However books that grab my attention are either non-fiction, current events, political and social in nature. Rarely do I find so much excitement in fiction as I have found in two novels I read recently George Orwell's epic 1984 and Ray Bradbury's classic Fahrenheit 451. Although two different authors, two different books with two different sets of characters and premises, they have a point of synthesis and that is they are about an inept and corrupted societies. The difference is whether it comes from the state or the people.
In 1984, Winston Smith is a citizen of a totalitarian society based off of war, communism, and authorianism. The principle villain in the novel is the Government with its thought police, youth leagues, telescreens spying on you at all times, the Two Minutes Hate, the backwards thinking and the dumbing down of society with the use of Newspeak. The government controls everything from economics down to reproduction. The Party (as its called) has its hands in every pot, it decides marriages and terms for divorce, it regulates that sex is only for the purpose of reproduction ("our duty to the party"), it even regulates facial expressions (facecrime: improper expression on the face). But the most important thing the Party does is it changes history, it modifies human behavior, it manipulates through nationalism and emotional appeals.
The Party manipulates thought. First by controlling the language with Newspeak (the official language). Newspeak is nonsense to say the least but the purpose of it is to eliminate thought. By limiting words or by changing their meaning they can control what people believe and what they say. The more famous sayings in the book are "WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH". Notice that things are the opposite of what they really mean? This is common throughout the novel The Party even does the mind fucking when it comes to the branches of government: Ministry of Truth (which distorts the truth and blatantly changes history to fit The Party's agenda), Ministry of Peace (whose job it is to make war)< Ministry of Love (that concerns itself with law & order) and the Ministry of Plenty (economic concerns).
In the book The Party is an all powerful hero saving the people from its enemies in a perpetual state of war and fear. Fear of Eastasia, fear of Eurasia, fear of the thought police, fear of Goldstein (traitor to The Party, he dares to want freedom of speech) and The Party does thing using The Two Minutes Hate.
The Two Minutes Hate is sort of a nationwide shutdown, where all the citizens get together and watch a screen that shows their enemies attacking them. It instills fear and then shows that The Party will come to rescue them.
The worst infraction of The Party is that it changes history (Winston's actual job). The Party's motto is "WHO CONTROLS THE PAST...CONTROLS THE FUTURE". Winston's job is to edit each and every book and magazine to change words and history according to The Party's agenda at the time. The central problem is when Winston can no longer blissfully ignore that he is changing history and he seeks to find out what happened before The Party came along, before Big Brother (the head of state) and how he can escape or overthrow The Party altogether.
But BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU...and this is such a haunting statement and it is plastered all over the country but the people are supposed to believe that Big Brother is watching to PROTECT and not to oppress. But Winston says: "Always the eyes watching you and the voice enveloping you. Asleep or awake, working or eating, indoors or outdoors, in the bath or in the bed-no escape. Nothing was your own except a few cubic centimeters inside your skull" (26). Your thoughts and if your thoughts were made public and were against The Party...needless to say things did not end well.
Now it is time to transfer to Fahrenheit 451. Bradbury's society is much, much different than Orwell's. In Bradbury's society it is the populace that is the oppressor. In F.451 the principle figure is Guy Montag a fireman, whose job is not to put out fires but to start them. In Bradbury's society the firemen burn books, arrest readers and the burn down the homes of people that read. The purpose of this is to keep people in a constant state of happiness and the belief that reading or people that read make others around them unhappy.
Captain Beatty, the firemen chief goes on a long speech about why books are banned:
"You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can't have our minorities upset and stirred. Ask yourself. What do we want in this country above all? People want to be happy. Isn't that it?" (59). Bradbury is white but is not talking about blacks here in fact before that statement he writes: "Bigger the population, the more minorities. Don't step on the toes of the dog lovers, the cat lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants..." (57). What Bradbury is saying is that censorship and mass media lead society to break down and in order to not offend anyone they stopped reading. It is a war on intellectualism that is being waged. The people are only interested in sports and television things that make people happy. Bradbury continues: "With school turning out more runners, jumpers, racers, tinkerers, grabbers, snatchers, fliers and swimmers instead of knowers and imaginative creators, the word 'intellectual' became the swear word it deserved to be" (58). He goes on: "Colored people don't like Little Black Sambo. Burn It. White people don't feel good about Uncle Tom's Cabin. Burn It. Someone's written a book about tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book." (60).The society is crumbling because pleasure has taken over. People like feeling good and readers muddy the waters. Guy decides to read, which is the conflict of the story, and puts everything in jeopardy. He learns that the society even polices itself, when people turn each other in for reading. The ignorance of the masses has forced itself on every individual in this book. The concept is sweeping, books must be burned because intellectuals upset people asking questions and forcing people to think, society must be dumbed down for mass media understanding, schools are ineffective anyway and the government doesn't care because a non-thinking, pleasure-oriented society is great for them.
The reason I chose these two novels are because I see alot of America today in them. Of course they are hyperbolic in some ways but there are glimpses of both in today's world. I believe it is important to read both of these novels to get a full understanding of what Bradbury & Orwell were thinking when they structured both of these societies but it is hard not to notice that these books are very, very relevant.
In 1984, Winston Smith is a citizen of a totalitarian society based off of war, communism, and authorianism. The principle villain in the novel is the Government with its thought police, youth leagues, telescreens spying on you at all times, the Two Minutes Hate, the backwards thinking and the dumbing down of society with the use of Newspeak. The government controls everything from economics down to reproduction. The Party (as its called) has its hands in every pot, it decides marriages and terms for divorce, it regulates that sex is only for the purpose of reproduction ("our duty to the party"), it even regulates facial expressions (facecrime: improper expression on the face). But the most important thing the Party does is it changes history, it modifies human behavior, it manipulates through nationalism and emotional appeals.
The Party manipulates thought. First by controlling the language with Newspeak (the official language). Newspeak is nonsense to say the least but the purpose of it is to eliminate thought. By limiting words or by changing their meaning they can control what people believe and what they say. The more famous sayings in the book are "WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH". Notice that things are the opposite of what they really mean? This is common throughout the novel The Party even does the mind fucking when it comes to the branches of government: Ministry of Truth (which distorts the truth and blatantly changes history to fit The Party's agenda), Ministry of Peace (whose job it is to make war)< Ministry of Love (that concerns itself with law & order) and the Ministry of Plenty (economic concerns).
In the book The Party is an all powerful hero saving the people from its enemies in a perpetual state of war and fear. Fear of Eastasia, fear of Eurasia, fear of the thought police, fear of Goldstein (traitor to The Party, he dares to want freedom of speech) and The Party does thing using The Two Minutes Hate.
The Two Minutes Hate is sort of a nationwide shutdown, where all the citizens get together and watch a screen that shows their enemies attacking them. It instills fear and then shows that The Party will come to rescue them.
The worst infraction of The Party is that it changes history (Winston's actual job). The Party's motto is "WHO CONTROLS THE PAST...CONTROLS THE FUTURE". Winston's job is to edit each and every book and magazine to change words and history according to The Party's agenda at the time. The central problem is when Winston can no longer blissfully ignore that he is changing history and he seeks to find out what happened before The Party came along, before Big Brother (the head of state) and how he can escape or overthrow The Party altogether.
But BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU...and this is such a haunting statement and it is plastered all over the country but the people are supposed to believe that Big Brother is watching to PROTECT and not to oppress. But Winston says: "Always the eyes watching you and the voice enveloping you. Asleep or awake, working or eating, indoors or outdoors, in the bath or in the bed-no escape. Nothing was your own except a few cubic centimeters inside your skull" (26). Your thoughts and if your thoughts were made public and were against The Party...needless to say things did not end well.
Now it is time to transfer to Fahrenheit 451. Bradbury's society is much, much different than Orwell's. In Bradbury's society it is the populace that is the oppressor. In F.451 the principle figure is Guy Montag a fireman, whose job is not to put out fires but to start them. In Bradbury's society the firemen burn books, arrest readers and the burn down the homes of people that read. The purpose of this is to keep people in a constant state of happiness and the belief that reading or people that read make others around them unhappy.
Captain Beatty, the firemen chief goes on a long speech about why books are banned:
"You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can't have our minorities upset and stirred. Ask yourself. What do we want in this country above all? People want to be happy. Isn't that it?" (59). Bradbury is white but is not talking about blacks here in fact before that statement he writes: "Bigger the population, the more minorities. Don't step on the toes of the dog lovers, the cat lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants..." (57). What Bradbury is saying is that censorship and mass media lead society to break down and in order to not offend anyone they stopped reading. It is a war on intellectualism that is being waged. The people are only interested in sports and television things that make people happy. Bradbury continues: "With school turning out more runners, jumpers, racers, tinkerers, grabbers, snatchers, fliers and swimmers instead of knowers and imaginative creators, the word 'intellectual' became the swear word it deserved to be" (58). He goes on: "Colored people don't like Little Black Sambo. Burn It. White people don't feel good about Uncle Tom's Cabin. Burn It. Someone's written a book about tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book." (60).The society is crumbling because pleasure has taken over. People like feeling good and readers muddy the waters. Guy decides to read, which is the conflict of the story, and puts everything in jeopardy. He learns that the society even polices itself, when people turn each other in for reading. The ignorance of the masses has forced itself on every individual in this book. The concept is sweeping, books must be burned because intellectuals upset people asking questions and forcing people to think, society must be dumbed down for mass media understanding, schools are ineffective anyway and the government doesn't care because a non-thinking, pleasure-oriented society is great for them.
The reason I chose these two novels are because I see alot of America today in them. Of course they are hyperbolic in some ways but there are glimpses of both in today's world. I believe it is important to read both of these novels to get a full understanding of what Bradbury & Orwell were thinking when they structured both of these societies but it is hard not to notice that these books are very, very relevant.
Malcolm X After Death
I have always had an interest in Malcolm's life. What he thought, what he believed, what he actually said. And now after years of reading books and websites and so on about Malcolm I feel like I understand the thought and the beliefs and the change of thoughts and beliefs that occurred during his life.
I recently came across a documentary entitled Political Assassinations and the topic of the documentary was Malcolm X. The talk of Malcolm's life and all the above parts of it aside. I found myself strangely interested in his death. The actual shooting, the investigation of his shooting and the national reaction to his death. Sure this is a daunting task, probably better fit for people who write books instead of blogs but I was able to find alot of things searching the web that I would like to share.
First let me give credit to The Malcolm X Project at Columbia University because without them I would never have found all the information I present here now. They're site is chock full of newspaper clippings from major media outlets written around the time of his death. It gives a very real perspective of how the media felt about Malcolm during his day.
The Shooting
The Audubon Ballroom. Harlem, New York 3:15pm
Anonymous Eyewitness: "Everybody turned and so did I, and then I heard Malcolm saying 'Be cool now, don't get excited' and then I heard this muffled sound and I saw Malcolm hit with his hands still raised and then he fell over the chairs behind him. And everybody was shouting and I saw someone firing a gun from under his coat behind me, I hit it [the floor] too. And he was firing like he was in some Western, running backward toward the door and firing at the same time." (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965)
The "someone" this eyewitness saw was named Thomas Hagan, a 22 year old Black Muslim firing what the Police Dept. Community Relations Bureau stated was a "double barreled shotgun with shortened barrels and stock" at a prone Malcolm. The melee that ensued after the shock of the shooting left Hagan himself shot in the leg and being pummeled by Malcolm supporters. Hagan then begged the police for assistance and after rescuing him, the police found in his coat pocket 4 unused .45-caliber shotgun shells (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965).
The Assistant Chief Inspector would state Malcolm was hit with 6 shots in the chest and 1 in the arm, which is contrary to the police saying Malcolm was struck with 7 bullets (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965)
. The Los Angeles Times (Feb. 22, 1965) would report that an autopsy found 16 wounds in Malcolm's body. Doctors messaged his heart but Malcolm was pronounced dead on arrival at 3:30pm.
Witness, Stanley Scott: "There was a scuffle in the back of the auditorium, possibly to distract from the assassins...shots rang out...men,women and children ran for cover. The stretched out on the floor and ducked under tables. His wife Betty--who was in the audience--ran about screaming hysterically, 'they're killing my husband' (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965).
Witness "Registered Nurse": "Two men rushing the stage and firing from underneath their coats...I rushed to the stage even while the firing was going on...I don't know how I got on stage, but I threw myself down on who I thought was Malcolm--but it wasn't. I was willing to die for the man. I would have taken the bullets myself. Then I saw Malcolm and the firing stopped, and I tried to give him artificial respiration...I think he was dead then" (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965).
Such chilling accounts of the assassination make the blood both boil and freeze. How one could recall such a deed so vividly makes it feel like you were there and that you yourself had seen and would never forget it. The media was very useful here but it wouldn't always be so.
The "Obituary"
New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965:
"Malcolm X had the ingredients for leadership but his ruthless and fanatical belief in violence not only set him apart from the responsible leaders of the Civil Rights Movement and the overwhelming majority of Negroes. It marked him for notoriety and a violent end....Malcolm X's life was strangely and pitifully wasted. But this was because he did not seek to fit into society or the life of his own people....The world he saw through those horned-rimmed glasses of his was distorted and dark, But it was made darker still with his exaltation of fanaticism."
First thing I thought when I read that..."what the fuck kind of obituary is this?"
Then I had to remind myself its the 60s, and the writer--probably white, was not the biggest supporter of Malcolm's goals. The "fanaticism" argument is very prevalent in alot of the articles posted on the Columbia University site. I cannot imagine living during this time and being ignorant of what Malcolm stood for and this being my introduction or this being a proper farewell for him. Malcolm is colored a racist, a bigot, a radical, violent, ruthless and just about anything except a good man. His messages are cherry picked for the purpose of self-fulfilling prophecy. This is one of the times I am glad to be looking back and not being a person who lived during this time.
The Burial
This is perhaps my favorite part. The very unorthodox funeral for Malcolm seems to fit his life to me. Malcolm died El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, a believer in Orthodox Islam and as such there are certain ways of committing bodies to the ground. One of the big issues was that Malcolm was buried 6 days after death, Islamic law requires burial within 24 hours. His wife postponed the service so that Malcolm's African friends could attend. The service itself was held in a C.O.G.I.C (Church of God In Christ)church, a Christian church! One of Malcolm's religious advisors Sheik Faisal pointed out all the deviations of Malcolm's funeral from Islamic Law. Faisal stated that: "Death is a private matter between Allah and the deceased" and that "nothing should be done during the services that create emotion or a sense of bereavement". Yet both happened. There were sermons and eulogies both of which are a no-no, it was widely covered in the media, thus it wasn't necessarily a "private" matter.
The funeral did adhere to some Islamic fundamentals too. Malcolm was wrapped in the seven white shrouds in accordance and even though the service took place in a Christian church there were no hints of Christianity. The rule of no Christianity was a very serious one, if there were any Christian sermons or prayers etc Malcolm would have be deemed a non-believer in Islam altogether (New York Times. Feb. 28, 1965).
I felt a strange completeness, I felt closure after reading those clippings. Of course there are still many things to learn and more than just what a very few articles could cover but it gives a very broad overview which is something I never had before. So hopefully the reader of this blog learned a few things after reading it and as we approach Malcolm's 86th birthday on May 19, 2011 and although he has been dead for over 45 years there is still much to know, much more to uncover, many more books on him to read (Manning Marable recently released a book on him and I still haven't read the Alex Haley autobiography) but this will have to do for now.
I recently came across a documentary entitled Political Assassinations and the topic of the documentary was Malcolm X. The talk of Malcolm's life and all the above parts of it aside. I found myself strangely interested in his death. The actual shooting, the investigation of his shooting and the national reaction to his death. Sure this is a daunting task, probably better fit for people who write books instead of blogs but I was able to find alot of things searching the web that I would like to share.
First let me give credit to The Malcolm X Project at Columbia University because without them I would never have found all the information I present here now. They're site is chock full of newspaper clippings from major media outlets written around the time of his death. It gives a very real perspective of how the media felt about Malcolm during his day.
The Shooting
The Audubon Ballroom. Harlem, New York 3:15pm
Anonymous Eyewitness: "Everybody turned and so did I, and then I heard Malcolm saying 'Be cool now, don't get excited' and then I heard this muffled sound and I saw Malcolm hit with his hands still raised and then he fell over the chairs behind him. And everybody was shouting and I saw someone firing a gun from under his coat behind me, I hit it [the floor] too. And he was firing like he was in some Western, running backward toward the door and firing at the same time." (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965)
The "someone" this eyewitness saw was named Thomas Hagan, a 22 year old Black Muslim firing what the Police Dept. Community Relations Bureau stated was a "double barreled shotgun with shortened barrels and stock" at a prone Malcolm. The melee that ensued after the shock of the shooting left Hagan himself shot in the leg and being pummeled by Malcolm supporters. Hagan then begged the police for assistance and after rescuing him, the police found in his coat pocket 4 unused .45-caliber shotgun shells (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965).
The Assistant Chief Inspector would state Malcolm was hit with 6 shots in the chest and 1 in the arm, which is contrary to the police saying Malcolm was struck with 7 bullets (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965)
. The Los Angeles Times (Feb. 22, 1965) would report that an autopsy found 16 wounds in Malcolm's body. Doctors messaged his heart but Malcolm was pronounced dead on arrival at 3:30pm.
Witness, Stanley Scott: "There was a scuffle in the back of the auditorium, possibly to distract from the assassins...shots rang out...men,women and children ran for cover. The stretched out on the floor and ducked under tables. His wife Betty--who was in the audience--ran about screaming hysterically, 'they're killing my husband' (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965).
Witness "Registered Nurse": "Two men rushing the stage and firing from underneath their coats...I rushed to the stage even while the firing was going on...I don't know how I got on stage, but I threw myself down on who I thought was Malcolm--but it wasn't. I was willing to die for the man. I would have taken the bullets myself. Then I saw Malcolm and the firing stopped, and I tried to give him artificial respiration...I think he was dead then" (New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965).
Such chilling accounts of the assassination make the blood both boil and freeze. How one could recall such a deed so vividly makes it feel like you were there and that you yourself had seen and would never forget it. The media was very useful here but it wouldn't always be so.
The "Obituary"
New York Times, Feb. 22, 1965:
"Malcolm X had the ingredients for leadership but his ruthless and fanatical belief in violence not only set him apart from the responsible leaders of the Civil Rights Movement and the overwhelming majority of Negroes. It marked him for notoriety and a violent end....Malcolm X's life was strangely and pitifully wasted. But this was because he did not seek to fit into society or the life of his own people....The world he saw through those horned-rimmed glasses of his was distorted and dark, But it was made darker still with his exaltation of fanaticism."
First thing I thought when I read that..."what the fuck kind of obituary is this?"
Then I had to remind myself its the 60s, and the writer--probably white, was not the biggest supporter of Malcolm's goals. The "fanaticism" argument is very prevalent in alot of the articles posted on the Columbia University site. I cannot imagine living during this time and being ignorant of what Malcolm stood for and this being my introduction or this being a proper farewell for him. Malcolm is colored a racist, a bigot, a radical, violent, ruthless and just about anything except a good man. His messages are cherry picked for the purpose of self-fulfilling prophecy. This is one of the times I am glad to be looking back and not being a person who lived during this time.
The Burial
This is perhaps my favorite part. The very unorthodox funeral for Malcolm seems to fit his life to me. Malcolm died El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, a believer in Orthodox Islam and as such there are certain ways of committing bodies to the ground. One of the big issues was that Malcolm was buried 6 days after death, Islamic law requires burial within 24 hours. His wife postponed the service so that Malcolm's African friends could attend. The service itself was held in a C.O.G.I.C (Church of God In Christ)church, a Christian church! One of Malcolm's religious advisors Sheik Faisal pointed out all the deviations of Malcolm's funeral from Islamic Law. Faisal stated that: "Death is a private matter between Allah and the deceased" and that "nothing should be done during the services that create emotion or a sense of bereavement". Yet both happened. There were sermons and eulogies both of which are a no-no, it was widely covered in the media, thus it wasn't necessarily a "private" matter.
The funeral did adhere to some Islamic fundamentals too. Malcolm was wrapped in the seven white shrouds in accordance and even though the service took place in a Christian church there were no hints of Christianity. The rule of no Christianity was a very serious one, if there were any Christian sermons or prayers etc Malcolm would have be deemed a non-believer in Islam altogether (New York Times. Feb. 28, 1965).
I felt a strange completeness, I felt closure after reading those clippings. Of course there are still many things to learn and more than just what a very few articles could cover but it gives a very broad overview which is something I never had before. So hopefully the reader of this blog learned a few things after reading it and as we approach Malcolm's 86th birthday on May 19, 2011 and although he has been dead for over 45 years there is still much to know, much more to uncover, many more books on him to read (Manning Marable recently released a book on him and I still haven't read the Alex Haley autobiography) but this will have to do for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
