Murderous White People

At the end of Chapter 13, in my book ASE, I clarify what the problem is. Although, in the context of the chapter, I am referring to the starting of wars, the blame is able to be more generically widespread to what readers of mine could express as “Mr. Taylor's problem with the world.” It is quoted, “If you are so inclined, it is unlikely you will have any problem finding other foreign examples, (of the problem.) However, if you're like me, you want to go to the biggest source, the top of the pyramid. Here you will find white, male, bitter, pinched, mean, old faces who have as their last concern, your well being. I think it is well worth our while to notice who is represented here and how. It used to be that “they who had all the gold made the rule.” Perhaps now we should scrap the Golden Rule and replace it with something else. After all, if you spent all your gold on bombs, you still make the rules. If you feel uncomfortable having this discussion, you had best be honest with yourself about why this is.”

So in its briefest expression, at its lowest common denominator and with caution now thrown to the wind I present what is probably my most controversial statement ever: My problem is with white people.

In the past, other races of folks have run around the globe, killing, raping, taking what they want from other people, even themselves. We can find in history examples of, for instance, this African people wiping out that African people. Or perhaps, these Asians wiping out these other Asians. We can also point to ancient ideas that segregate, or at minimum “devalue” other humans lives: Perhaps you are part of a culture that finds women to be lesser than men, or the handicapped, or even the less intelligent. Perhaps you go so far as to clarify your distinctions such that only certain hair or eye colours are acceptable. It doesn't matter, because dead is dead.

Despite all this “practice,” I stand by my statement that, in the modern world and for the last approximately 300 years: the white hand is the one holding the whip. No race has stolen more resources, plundered more land and killed more people. In my research for this piece, I looked up some numbers. I did so because often when you read a book, or watch a documentary, facts and figures are presented in such a way that they support the author's goals. I wanted to make sure that when I say white people have killed more than any other race, I was correct. It appears I am correct by an extremely large margin. In my research I discovered some people have already tried to answer this question, which is strictly a number, by saying the Romans have, or the Mongols have. Well, firstly (idiots!) Romans are white. Secondly, the Romans (in the Empire's prime,) wiped out approximately eight million people. The Mongols, during Genghis Khan's reign killed an estimated forty million people. While these numbers are large, the number of people killed by whites is measured in billions.

Consider Britain alone: It killed or allowed to die by way of purposeful inaction, nearly two billion Indians and did so in a paltry eighty years. The Germans killed up to seventeen million in less than ten years. The Belgians killed over ten million Congolese just to harvest rubber. The European invasion, (I think it's fair to call it an invasion,) of North and South America killed off several hundred million of indigenous peoples, even using the most conservative numbers. I would say all of those deaths occurred in the time between the fifteenth and twentieth centuries, except for the fact that these murders continue to this day, (albeit mostly at the hands of Americans,) by way of people being displaced at the “hands of progress.”

Now, having said all this, it may occur to some of you that the White Peril is not necessarily the product of being white, that is to say, not a product of race but rather a product of place. Meaning that it is only because whites have power, (money,) not necessarily because they have paler flesh. This could be considered true, but in order to do so, one would have to ignore the fact that for these many hundreds of years, Caucasians have considered only the opposite. If, for instance, we could convince a Nazi to raise up a healthy Hebrew baby to adulthood, giving him or her all the environmental cushions that a Nazi child would have, (provided he or she was “white enough,”) then surely it could be scientifically proven that race is not a determinant in the varied successes of any particular human. Thus we come to the great lie that all racists must hide behind.

Racism through the ages does not support the ideas represented in the previous paragraph. Whites are not the Kings of the World because they are white, as much as non-whites are not the slaves of the world because they are not. Whites are in charge because they took charge. They did so brutally and with only power and wealth in mind. There are very few instances of whites not “winning” whatever claim they undertook. Looking back in history, there have been times of reparations, but all of these cannot ease the past suffering of those people which Caucasoids chose to exploit. In fact, most of the reparations offered by, for instance, England to India, or America to the Native Americans, have been charades to save face. Once you have all the gold, all the land, all the bombs, any apology or even establishment of right cannot hold a flame to near or complete genocide.

So why is it that I'm still alive? Why haven't the non-white nations of the world risen up and smote us all? (Yes, I'm white. I'm about as white as you can get.) The answer, albeit painful, is simple. It's because whites, despite being bastards, have brought the world to the point it is at now. We have pushed progress faster than any other race, nation or idea. Everyone who isn't white, strives to be white, or perhaps more correctly, strives to live within the western paradigm. Even to this day, with America as the current Empire, stomping around the world killing brown people, immigration to the US flows uncontested. Everybody wants the cushy job, the air conditioning and the Big Mac. Some of you, at this point, are probably thinking this sounds like I'm gloating, (being white,) or even some kind of weird backwards racist, but the fact is I'm embarrassed. I'm ashamed of my race, my culture, even my current status in life. I have the cushy job, air conditioning and I can have a Big Mac whenever I want. I can't help that it just happened to be white Europeans that either developed and/or exploited the sciences that came out of Europe after the middle ages. We are where we are. I can't even help the fact that I can do nothing to better the situation. We are all trapped in a status quo that not only devalues existence, but may prove to be its demise. Some of you might even argue that "the whiteness" I'm referring to isn't shared by, for instance, Barack Obama. You're wrong. The whiteness isn't measured by the colour of your skin, but by your ability to "act white." (Be greedy, cruel, spoiled and ignorant.)

I'd like to suggest that, as it was the wealthy and powerful that were the ones that got us into this mess, that it be the same that get us out. Just because you're grandfather was evil doesn't mean you have to be. So how about it, powerful leaders of the western paradigm? Which of you is going to be the one to stand up, be pragmatic, be honest, be prudent and say, "I'm sorry, here's what we're going to do to fix it?"

Take the chance now, before the chance is taken from you...

On the Freeman Experience

If you're unaware, there are a very small number of people in the world, calling themselves "Freemen of the land." 

These men, (it's always men, I've never seen a Freewoman, I presume they exist,) carrying on about their lives, not insuring their cars, not paying any particular heed to any law at all. 

I quote wikipedia:

"Freemen on the land" are people who claim that all statute law is contractual, and that such law is applicable only if an individual consents to be governed by it. They believe that they can therefore declare themselves independent of government jurisdiction, holding that the only "true" law is common law, as they define it. The "Freeman on the land" movement has its origins in various United States-based groups in the 1970s and 1980s, reaching the United Kingdom soon after 2000. The phrase "Freeman-on-the-Land" (FOTL) first appeared around 2004 and was coined by Robert Arthur Menard.

 The problem I have with this idea is that laws, for the most part, exist because we have need for them.  Laws protect us from each other. (Some laws protect us from ourselves, for instance "drug laws," but for the sake of today's discussion, I need us to come to a consensus on the matter.) 

So, hopefully you and I can agree that a lawless society would be, at the least, more dangerous and unpleasant than the reality (I hope) we currently inhabit. 

Whether or not the Freeman are correct in their claim of the "contractual" nature of personhood is purposely not part of our discussion. I don't think that it's true, but I also don't care, because laws are like suggestions, we still have people that break them every day. So in the end, as always we are responsible for our own actions, legal entity or not.

See, these Freemen aren't fighting oppression from tyrannical governments, this is not some coup d'etat. They are Canadians, American's, English, spoiled. They don't want to pay their income tax. They tie up courtrooms fighting speeding tickets. They're fucking around. 

The problem isn't the laws we put upon ourselves.

A person will be what he or she wants, short of another to make him or her something less.

(Again, personal responsibility.)

The real problem is the laws we put upon others. 

Our governments (the governments of the Freemen, the governments of the Western Paradigm,) are not despotic. (Okay, well maybe they are a little, they certainly do whatever they want.)

But it hasn't come to a place where we're lighting torches and marching on the corridors of power.

Not in the way that Syria is, for instance.

When a government is really messing with you, you know it.

Fucking Freemen. Give me a break.

Our government, this very week came up against three hurdles in it's capitalist alien agenda to turn us all into molemen. 

1.) BC decided to "let science decide" if the pipeline from Alberta's tar sands to the Pacific should go ahead. (wink)

2.) Somebody thought it would be a good idea to let reporters be Senators. (Speaking of moles.)

3.) Tom Mulcair has a pair. 

(Sorry for non-Canadians, this last paragraph wouldn't make much sense. Let's just say that our Neo-Conservative Prime Minister is having a hard time explaining his parties' shenanigans.)

The point is: The truth has a way of coming around, with or without your help. 

Laws aren't decreed when we decide to go to war. We volunteer. 

Personal responsibility.

When the government reinstates the draft. 

Then we need Freemen.

When the government destroys a nation's best interests, bit by bit, in the name of commerce. 

Freemen aren't going to cut it. 

Personal responsibility.

Live Life Properly: How Philosophy can save the world

Live Life Properly

How philosophy can save the world

Plato said “the unexamined life is not worth living.” While I agree with this statement, it's still up for debate. A dog or cat, for instance, probably doesn't examine their life to the same degree, or with the same skill set within a human's capability, yet there is a very fair argument that said dog or cat can live a full and happy life. The same argument could be made for a bush, or tree.

However we, (and Plato,) are not talking about dogs or trees, these things, while being alive, are simply not able to live the examined life, as it is the examination itself that is beyond them. This points to a simple concept and fair question, by way of our ability to do so, are we not obligated to philosophize? This is a topic that has been discussed since Aristotle, (who believed in “the purpose” of things, such that a knife with no edge is not a knife at all.) Rene Descartes who said, “I think, therefore I am,” also speaks to this ability to reason as a depiction of purpose. In short, flipping the statement on its head, to not think is to not be.

Modern humans in the year 2013 have a decided advantage of Descartes and especially Aristotle, in that we can all be Philosophers. We are capable of doing philosophy by way of our common education and our desires to express our Self. Philosophy is just the study of thought and most of us study our own thoughts at various times throughout our lives. We do philosophy without realizing we are doing so. The bulk of the population in Aristotle's time was lucky if they weren't slaves. The bulk of the population in Descarte's time was lucky if they knew how to read. We have the internet. We are at least capable of being connected and communicating with everyone else in the world, in real time. We are an amalgam intellect. We can learn anything we want, for free, instantly.

So why don't we? Why is it that our lives are not already perfect? There has never been a time of more affluence, more intelligence, more capability than the time we currently find ourselves inhabiting. Why are there still problems in the world? Why do people suffer? The answer, reduced to its lowest common denominator is simple: We are trapped in a faulty social contract. We punch a clock.

A social contract is a decided effort to work towards specific goals, accepted by a group of people. Usually these goals are defined by governments and work toward the bulk of the population living comfortable lives. Obviously, various systems are currently and historically being exercised. Such is it that we can refer to these ongoing exercises as experiments, for instance: the American experiment versus the Chinese experiment. Ultimately, these rather dichotomous sounding experiments are strikingly similar: A ruling elite manages the working class. The most important thing to take note of is that, despite our modern cleverness and technological advancement, life really hasn't changed for most humans in three hundred years. We go to work, we pay our way, we live, we die. We cash our cheques.

The real problems in the social contract are revealed wholly by the lack of foresight expressed by the contract, (it seems, by whatever contract you subscribe to.) We all march down the sidewalk together, robots on their way to work. We all pay the toll the contract requires, while merely supplying to our own demands. Modernity is a palindrome, the snake head eating the head on the opposite side. The system provides the labour, the labour provides the reward, the reward entitles me to the requirements of living. Given that all three links in the chain remain unbroken, life can be comfortable, but it certainly says nothing about my (or your) ability to live up to our purposes.

Social contracts come and go. They change in revolution, yet history suggests they don't really change at all. If we tire of some particular despotic government, we oust them and replace it with some other ruling elite, a (hopefully) better elite that will govern us the way we prefer. If this is a people's revolution, it is often for the better. However a people's revolution is a very rare thing. Like all things in life, revolution is a business decision and business never changes. Business decisions are always in favour of more business. People who revolt are usually being oppressed, businesses who revolt, (via government, which is the business of ruling,) are usually just trying to do more business. Such is it that we may safely conclude that the revolutions of the people are the type that end in what we would consider an advancement of human rights, (whatever that means.) Every other revolution, which represents the great majority of them, serve only the preservation of the status quo, however disguised.

Revolution from a personal standpoint begins and ends with the self. You are, after all, all you have to work with. I'd like to suggest that a revolution of the self is a major proponent of the 21^st Century Enlightenment. If we each take it upon ourselves to be the fair, prudent and courageous humans we are meant to be, rather than cogs in a clockwork that merely serves to mark our time between life and death, the world can only become a better place. However, revolution is painful and often ugly. The powers that enjoy the status quo are vast and deep. To work against the status quo is difficult, yet if the social contracts established are failing us, this challenge must be accepted, even by the purveyors of the contract. For it is not the case that simply replacing one elite for another will begin to solve our problems. The elite are not the problem, the system is the problem. We have all signed on to an agreement to plunder our planet and ourselves for the sake of a comfortable life now, be damned the future. I'm not even speaking of the ecological problems caused by our actions, although these concerns are fair and relevant. I'm talking about re-establishing what it is we think life is supposed to mean, what we accept as our purpose, what we consider our role in a global social contract, species wide as inhabitant caretakers of the Earth and the only known intelligence in the Universe.

This is a very large and very real problem.

None of these concerns can ever be remedied without first philosophizing upon them.

None of those philosophies can ever be enacted without taking action.

None of those actions can be realized without taking responsibility for them.

You have been given the opportunity to be the change you want in the world.

You cannot unread these words. You can disagree only by remaining silent.

Undertake the contemplative life for the sake of future generations, if not for your own.

Philosophy is the first step to a better world.

The revolution begins with you.

Advanced Pseudonymous Threat: Hyper-Manipulating America's Cyber-Security

"We're being told that the Chinese government is paying people to hack our computers, stealing our trade secrets. Secrets of commerce, invention, defence, formulation, data, records, all of it, everything. It's costing businesses millions of lost revenue, putting us in danger and belittling our very purpose. We are being told this as means to an ends, this much is as clear as is the collaboration of the messengers. The degree of truth in any socially engineered intention has its place in our understanding, but often we can learn more from the lie or the omission."

To read the post in its entirety, please click here

China's Social Conscience

中國的社會良知

China's Social Conscience

I've always been curious about China.

When we learned of China in elementary school, it was always in terms of their ancient history, achievements, geography or economic exports. (The classic encyclopedic cut and paste, before computers.) My teachers may have also brought up religion or politics, wars or social life, but never more than a skimming over: "none, communist, plentiful or difficult."

My parents were no help to me in truly understanding China, although they would have had opportunity to influence my opinion of it. I can not recall my father ever mentioning China, except in reference to population. My mother had a strong dislike for China's political and social movements and had personal memories of "Chairmen Mao in the news." My father was a card carrying New Democrat raised in Vancouver, British Columbia. My mother was an ex-Republican raised 

in Freeport, Illinois.

Then in 1989 there was the Tiananmen Square Protest in Bejing. I was aware that there was some sort of protests taking place, and of course, like everyone else I saw the iconic photo of the lone student standing in front of a line of tanks.  However, to be perfectly honest, I had other things on my mind at seventeen. These memories of my past represent the totality of my Chinese experience, which is to say, even to this day, I haven't any real understanding of China at all. 

Of course, I'm not seventeen anymore. I'm over forty now and a much more educated and wise person, or at least, this is the hope. Yet, I still know nothing substantial about modern China. Those of you who know me or have read me before must be aware that when I say "know" I mean a true knowing, via experiences beyond that of being told, as what we are told in the west is so often skewed. (Isn't it ironic that such concerns are valid in spite of having "China" as the subject matter?) For instance, in the west, China is "bad" because it is communist and, perhaps more specifically, not democratic. (I over-generalize, because it's true.) However, despite being a fan of democracy, I don't believe that any true democracy exists on our planet. There are only degrees of democracy to be found, some nations rate higher on this scale than others. Canada, for instance, would rate fairly high in comparison to China on any democratic scale, but I'm not sure that really matters at all.

The problem (already?) is one of definitions. This is due to a nearly complete inability for modern humans to truly understand what it is they even are discussing, due to "the Semantic Deception of Dialectical Theses" and "Hyper-Manipulation." (Anyone wishing to delve into the "Rampant Ineptitude of Modernity" will find everything they need on this website, or in my book, "Anti-Social Engineering the Hyper-Manipulated Self." But really what all this philosophical gobbledly gook means is: "Anything can be broken down and rendered meaningless in a reality you create. Now realize that people have known this for over one hundred years and have been manipulating you.")

So why does my curiosity about China continue to grow? Indeed, what is the point of this essay? It's simple, China is pro-social conscience. This may seem contradictory, considering what many consider to be a near infinite list of Chinese human rights abuses. A "social conscience" is "a personal consideration of one’s role and responsibility in society." It is like an understanding of your duties and obligations to citizenry; or "what you can do for your country and its people."

China is working toward something. The Chinese people do so consciously and cooperatively. (What it is they work toward is of no consequence, but just to be thorough, they work toward becoming as wealthy and powerful as America.) The point here is that they aren't there yet, it's been a long road, yet they stick to their path and together, the steps they take lead in the right direction: toward peace, prosperity, happiness for each other. The same old groovy things that we all want, to leave the world better off than when we got here. (Obviously, a topic for another essay.)

So contrast that with what (ironically, again) we in the western world work toward: peace, prosperity and happiness for ourselves. We are economically conscious. We are selfish, greedy and spoiled. Of course, there are selfish and greedy Chinese people, (call them the people in power.) And this is not to say that there are not problems in China that need to be addressed. It's just that the bulk of the people in China are what we would consider impoverished and yet they still carry the social contract. In much the same way, America used to be full of Americans who carried in their hearts and minds a social contract. But a social contract is difficult to adhere to in the face of blunt force success. Why would anyone wish to remain altruistic when one can be selfish and get rich? These prizes are what await China in it's successes, if they are not careful. Perhaps it doesn't matter if you advocate democracy or communism when it comes to capitalism.

Other countries, call them Muslim, also purport to live up to a contract, but theirs is religious. This is the most ridiculous and damaging social contract or consciousness to attempt carrying throughout your society. This is not a comment on any particular religion, but rather the transformation of that religion into civic duty. If you think China has issues with human rights abuses and America has issues with greed, this is nothing compared to the concept of beheading a man because he drew a caricature of a fictional entity. Religion is window dressing in America's social contract, it's irrelevant in China's. Kudos China. Arguments that morality stems from religion and China has "morality issues" are semantically flawed: Religion comes from having morals, not the other way around. (This is yet another concern for yet another fruitless essay.) Look at it this way: America lets it citizens do and say anything they want, (almost,) and they force their ideologies on the rest of the world. China may not let it's citizens do and say anything they want, but they leave the rest of the world alone. (Which is worse?) A Muslim's contract is to the worst of both worlds.

The next President of China, Xi Jinping, grew up in a cave as a peasant on a farm during Mao's cultural revolution, despite being from a wealthier family. (These were the sorts of things that we're forced on the Chinese people during the time. These were the concerns my mother warned me about. And yes, tens of millions of people died during the revolution. Mao's plan was flawed, despite the level of correctness in his intentions. But I still fail to see how, at least for Jinping, this could be anything but educational and socially grounding.) Jinping then returned to his city life and went to University, having lived on both side of the tracks, as it were. Now he's to be given ten years to convince the Chinese people that life is getting better for them rather than worse. Although China has been booming economically lately and even concerns about rights are voiced less and with greater infrequency, with the world going to shit at the hands of the Americans, China's still going to have it's hands full. I feel that China will continue its "hands off" approach and I like that. Consider the following quote from Jinping, who's most often described as "pragmatic:" "There are some bored foreigners, with full stomachs, who have nothing better to do than point fingers at us [China]. First, China doesn't export revolution. Second, China doesn't export hunger and poverty. Third, China doesn't come and cause you headaches. What more is there to be said?" Indeed.

Don't concern yourself too much about the fact that China is the last and greatest bastion of Communism. The reasons to let this slide are as numerous as the reasons you must let any other governmental concern slide: it's all a slippery slope of ball and cup magic. Is Canada "almost communist" because it's socialist? Is America democratic to offer only two parties to choose from? Is Russia democratic when Vladimir Putin has been in office since 1999? All of these countries I mention as examples of either an absent or misguided understanding of their own politics: either due to selfishness, greed, confusion or ignorance. China is not an exception to these apparent rules of the game: Greed exists because there are humans in positions of power. As this is not communism, a real and true communism where all things are equal amongst people, Communism is not any less real than Democracy, where an informed citizenry make relevant decisions on subjects that matter. It's all just a question of what we tell ourselves. The Chinese people get up every day and exercise together, (so I've read,) that in and of itself puts the rest of us to shame. I hope for the sake of all humanity, China doesn't fall into the traps of Western Culture, because really, that would put them to shame.

Communist corruption is not really any different than Democratic corruption. The thousands of Chinese officials who lived the good life by way of Uncle Sucker are only differentiated from their western counterparts by the fact that the communist says nothing and the capitalist lies. The problems of our systems lead to greed and corruption the same as in any system where there is a buck to be made, this human fault is universal. For the communist, so conservative, believing the system to be right, finding error or admitting mistakes is almost sin. These are the problems of pride. Read THIS  How is this problem any different than say, "Government Sachs," or the Finance Minister who comes to office with a balanced budget and seeks re-election with the promise of balancing the budget? How is the Chinese politician's adherence to his "political morality" any different than right wing Republicans? Corruption is an accountability problem. Every government in the world has this problem. If there was a way to make your politicians accountable, they'd have to do the will of the people. That would mean a true communism, a leveling off. This would be due to the scientific fact that fairness has a way of coming through, eventually.

I happen to be of the opinion that the military budget of the US alone could solve almost every single problem the world faces, if used properly. But since money is about to be returned to the imaginary realm from whence it sprang forth, I'm counting on the intentions of a citizenry to spring forth. When everyone stops getting paid, who's still gonna show up for work? I'll bet on China.

CBC News story about Xi Jinping:http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/11/08/f-who-is-xi-jinping.html?cmp=rss