Justice prompt

Prompt (‘Justice does not always come to those who deserve it.’)
Throughout history Humans have incorporated systems of hegemonic standings and exploits of the individual to establish the broader society we have today. It is Human incompetency that creates injustice or the lack of justice. Democracy as it stands today as a concept encourages inefficiency and wastefulness that leads to apathy and disregard to the system of the contract of civilization many individuals will exploit the inefficient system and this is present throughout all media and real-life. No justice for those who fell victim of the sub-prime mortgage loan crisis never came because of the system in place was based on techno-dabble of structures which ignored faith-based economics and the morality of economics, this is based on the exploitation of general inefficiency of democratic-market structure. The second instance of injustice is within the fictitious world of Fallout: New Vegas, which shows us the Human mentality of ideological freedom and self-preservation over the establishment of proper rule of law. My last point is a point of anecdotal evidence of my own experiences of injustice.

The prior and foregoing economic past has been filled with great sufficiency of accomplishments and furthermore great feats of mankind and production”, I believe that an individual can deny that, of course with every idea we have a fringe segment of the population will disagree about any given topic, “Grass is Green”. “Nah, mate. You lyin’”. However to disregard that segment of the populace, the people who legitimately disagree, they definitely make a many of good points, perhaps, such as the GFC which saw a new surge of Socialism in America, and the transition of the economy of the Cold War, to a new Globalist economy, however I would disagree. Of course I vehemently disagree with the GFC and what lead to it and the exploitation in the third world but the modern form of our economy has brought socialism, worker’s right, consumerism that has brought many out of poverty, and many into it, it has lead us to new feats of production. And while most of the economic global happenings of the world has been negative, however the statement I said was true “The prior and foregoing economic past has been filled with great sufficiency of accomplishments and furthermore great feats of mankind and production”
The GFC has and will continue changing the way that domestic businesses practice. The Global Financial Crisis was a global recession affecting near all nations except for China, and this immunity from the G.F.C built the idea of Chinese superiority over the U.S in the coming years. Some effects of the Global Financial crisis was that the housing market crashed, the stock market froze and superpowers such as the U.S, Russia, Germany, France and the U.K entered recession and the mass unemployment and homelessness of the first world, recession is a term used for when two consecutive quarters of a country’s gross domestic product (the GDP) are in negative growth, which leads to another byproduct of a recession which is the industrial and infrastructure market just stops, which leads to mass unemployment. This was more prevalent however in the recession of the 1930s named depressingly “The great Depression”. And because the economy and the labour infrastructure industry of America was failing that led to mass unemployment of labourers. Labour made up most of the employment segment because well it was the 1930s, it lead to mass unemployment, however in 2008 the market had changed and labor wasn’t as big a market as it was in the 1930s, and because of more globalised trade the 2008 recession didn’t hit as hard as that of the 1930s. The Global Recession was a product of really the banks, the government and to a lesser extent people buying houses. The GFC was caused mostly by banks handing out “Subprime mortgages”. Mortgages were a big market for investment, and banks would hand out mortgages to people with a job and a good credit rating because they are less likely to default on their Mortgage (I know that you most likely know this however I would feel odd to not explain this term A Mortgage is basically a loan that an individual takes out to pay for a house, but they pay the bank back the money with interest) , if an entity were to default the bank would take control of the property, because they were the ones who gave the mortgage out. The banks would sell off mortgages to companies and investment firms, however after the banks started to use business tactics to make more income and to gain more commodities they started to give out mortgages at a subprime level, that means they were giving out loans to people with lower credit and an unstable to no job. Meaning that it was more likely for individuals to default on their mortgage, this can be attributed to a many of factors besides the Bank’s own selfishness. However, notably the federal reserve’s low-interest rates which didn’t help to stop the mortgage fiasco. Because of the major defaults, banks, investment firms and markets decided to stop handing out money because of the major uncertainty, Freezing the markets and credit in the country would lead to little credit and money not going around in circulation as much, meaning businesses collapsed and lending from banks rarely happened during this period. But one of the last acts from the Bush administration which then was expanded by the Obama administration is the “T.A.R.P” the “The Troubled Asset Relief Program”. What the TARP did was that it gave $37.3 billion to banks, investment companies, insurance companies and many a such companies and organisations like that., saving many banks from bankruptcies, after the TARP was implemented banks were relieved of any financial responsibility so much in fact that some banks, namely AIG who was affected heavily by the GFC, still had made enough income to give executives bonuses that they had been given earlier. And so the because of the market crash and the freezing of credit in all markets, banks and investment firms the housing market crash, homelessness and unemployment became a rampant issue in the U.S. So to combat this the newly elected Obama administration authorised a major Stimulus package, taking notes from the great depression and how that was solved. (Here in Australia we got Rudd Cash to save us from the GFC!)
The GFC was mainly caused by the saying “Banks are too big to fail”, when America had an excess of foreign money in the country (notably from Asia, and even more interesting, it was China) It enabled bankers to hand out more credit than they can hand out, so more properties are being bought with credit and low quality and high-risk loans made by risky
investment firms foreign money in America. And when said credit was held up in the banks, along with the Government bailing out wall street to save global trade. Which was effective. However, more regulation was put on business. And because the GFC happened a new political and economic climate has arised, one of two spectrums and little in between. Socialism hybrid with Capitalism, and laissez-faire Capitalism. And really, the GFC is still happening, the repercussions haven’t truly left the world because the banks still are too big to fail, and another event like the GFC is bound to happen again in America, because of the ideology it was built upon and the way of which it is governed. And I strongly condemn the modern state of the United States even post GFC because nothing has changed, those who had caused this hardship for people still walk free, without penalty, Clinton, Bush and Obama can all be blamed for these happenings, and even still the two most likely American Candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump don’t want to further regulate the markets, Hillary even receiving money from the people who run big banks and Donald Trump being part of big business, will not regulate or further limit business practice. And this means that even after all we have talked about during the GFC and the economic repercussions of that period falls to deaf ears (Well, besides Bernie and Jill). So really the only people who are being affected by the “Banks too big to fail” ideology are the working class of the World, and they will still elect individuals who will let the businesses use dodgy methods to gain commodity. So to recap, The Global Financial was caused mostly by subprime mortgages, and because it is easy to gain commodity in both parties the banks and the investors. The big banks started giving the subprime mortgages to investors with the risk that the individual that took the loan may default. And default they did, (And they started living under Tarps). So because of the mass loss of money, the bank froze and stopped giving out money, and because of this businesses, individuals and the state stopped functioning spinning the world into a financial crisis. It was a Stimulus package that saved the U.S, however in some nations the effects of the GFC are still thriving. And because of this a new wave of socialism occurred and a new distrust for wall street and the big banks developed. And now a major platform for the world is to start reversing the banking ideology of the 1850s, and to start to regulate and control, to protect the citizenry, the banks and market must be reduced to slavery and serfdom to and for the population of a nation and not the other way around. And to end off the GFC piece, I wish to give you a quote from United States Secretary of Labor, The Honourable Robert Reich. “Any bank that is too big to fail, is too big. Failed”. No justice was given to the hundreds of thousands of people whom lost their jobs and commodities due to a failing in distributive powers, techno-babble of blame and unchecked happenings of banks and interest rates. To accommodate the greed and exploit the ignorance of the banking people we lose our faith in well, faith based economics and force the masses people to subscribe to a economic system not derived by them as a market entity but the elitism of the global banking system in place to simply confuse consumers into submission and use complicated terms to lead to prudent personal spending, freakonomics and liberal banking spending and subprime formal happenings of both investment rates and investment terms. The prompt of Justice not coming to those who deserve it is rooted within the system of hegemony that we all believe in. If we do not believe in the happenings of establishments that do not provide justice we can achieve a state of primitive moral rule. However, our society of market capitalism, checks, balances and even the state is based upon injustices of the general populace and global population. Justice does not come to those who deserve it because we choose to believe in systems that promote exploitation. We are not about to give up our cheap sweat-shop products to save kids in China, we aren’t going to stop benefitting off speculation from nameless corporation in the third world. Justice starts with us, and we don’t want justice.

The fallout game universe is based on an alternative reality that follows an alternative reality similar to that of Farnham’s Freehold by Robert A. Heinlein, it follows a similar storyline of alternative energy and the themes of hiding underground. The alternative history of fallout starts with collective mankind scientific plight of research from the automatic computing chips of the current timeline to the vacuum chip and nuclear energy changing the fundamental scientific achievements of modern man from computing to nuclear technology. Due to this fascination with nuclear technology the cold war just never stops and the culture of the 1950s never stops. This is the setting of the post-war fallout series. However, after years of unshackled resource consumption by the general populace the west and east must expand. The cold war activates into a full-fledged conflict between the powers of the Western Capitalist states and the People’s Republic of China. The escalation of the conflict occurred in October 23, 2077, after a 2-hour nuclear engagement between all the nuclear powers of the world left the Earth scorched, in shatters. The only life surviving is parasitic and adaptable plants and animals. However, whilst this seems like the end of the endeavour and philosophical occurrences of Humankind it was merely the beginning of the new chapter in the Human story. For people of importance were placed underground in vaults to be subject to a wide array of testing. Such as experiments of isolation, cryogenic freezing, torture, gassing, medical experiments and many other disturbing experiments harnessing the desperation of the general populace to make leaps into scientific research without the backlash of morality. (I shall give the premise of Human morality blocking advancement the name ‘vault philosophy’) 100 years after the devastation of the war many vaults started to open either by planned execution or by general uprise. These small bands of populations dotted the United States. Many populations founded small farming settlements and based themselves off the happenings of the old world founding democracies and others forming autocracies by rule of individuals and entities. However, the activity that had led to the predicament of the Fallout franchise that is inherent to the human condition did not cease… That activity being violence and expansionism. The year is 2281 in the outskirts of Las Vegas, Nevada 204 years after the great war, the protagonist is a blank amnesia-ridden trope of a character that has just survived death. We experience the world through the eyes of an individual that like the reader is new to this world. Within this world three major factions grasp for control of the hydroelectric Hoover Dam. The New California republic base their system of governance off the pre-war vision of Democracy and bureaucracy, in contrast we see the autocratic and despotic Caesar’s legion which based its forms of society on Roman imperialism and punishment. Lastly, we see Mr.House a dictator who governs over the “New” Vegas strip and rules via free market mutualism and late feudalism. This creates a dichotomy between safety and ideological freedom. Whilst Caesar’s legion brutally punishes criminals and use hardcore deterrence methods against raiders and troublemakers within their territory it creates a beautiful system of stability at the cost of freedom and choice, however Justice is distributed at terrifying efficiency akin to that of a modern war machine. In contrast the New California Republic often ignore populations in trouble as it doesn’t fall under official jurisdiction or due to a lack of resources. This is a dichotomy that is prevalent in all systems of justice and government you have the establishment of security at the price of personal freedom and the prospect of exploitation and self-gain. You have either prudence, self-sacrifice and security or the appeal to the Human bias of self-interest, possibility of corruption and inefficiency. This is shown in the vaults where Human morality is ambiguous in the pursuit of science. Justice may not come to those within the vaults however, they are saved from a great unfortunate fate. Furthermore when the vaults open you see the establishment of lawlessness and two possible ways of governance based on our modern human sensibilities. The lack of justice of grand populations due to the greed of Humans using democracy and the market to exploit and gain power, and the harsh justice of the legion at the expense of the idea of freedom and ability for advancement within society.
In finality, a quote by the character perfectly describes the sentiment of what I’m trying to describe. “If you want to see the fate of democracies, just look out the window [To the smouldering world]” it shows that injustices stem from the foundation of human bureaucracy and morality of unchecked democracy and market-resource accumulation. The NCR representing the concept of democracy shows that injustices exist due to the systemic problems of human incompetency of democracy and the hopelessness of the market due to greed. And the only possible way that justice can be achieved is to give up our personal freedoms and/or to submit to an absolute hegemony and despotic figure and either way injustice would still exist as Humans are inherent to Man’s psyche. Therefore, the prompt is correct as justice as a concept is not a concept that coincides with the Human spirit of greed and exploitation.

This is my anecdotal paragraph feel free to skip it, it isn’t interesting it’s just me complaining about my life, I don’t particularly often like talking about myself. Makes me feel weird. However, you are one of the most intelligent people I have ever met and would like to open up a little bit about myself to you and some of my history to try and describe how ‘injustices’ affected me (like it affects every child) Justice do not come to the Children of the world, I feel as though (not to seem narcissistic or pretentious, I understand that I am one of the most privileged people in the world) some of my experiences do not offer me any justice. I’m needlessly opening up here but I’d like to give some snapshots of some of the injustices in my life and where my cynicism comes from. I was born to my Mother and Father in 2002 and lived a generally happy life, however, due to my father’s absence from my life I depended on my Mother for emotional and constant support which led to me developing separation anxiety which blocked me from leaving my Mother therefore I had to repeat Kindergarden, this was typical childhood stuff. Five months before my Parent’s divorce I found a man floating in the local lake, face down, as my father was stressed out and eager to get home he ignored me and I had to beg that he believe that a man was floating in the lake. I didn’t leave the house for weeks and even after that I couldn’t leave without my Mother. I eventually was able to move past it and go finish Kindergarden however my social skills were below par. I started school and failed to develop academically or socially due to my awkwardness, the teacher mandated I befriended a boy named Nicholas and whilst he and I became fast friends, after prep, I advanced to year one and according to my reports from the time, I was illiterate, couldn’t do math and couldn’t communicate to anyone without great difficulty. I was told that I would fail and that I wasn’t academically good enough to pass. However, I learnt the basics of literacy from a teacher named Carol West who didn’t give up on me and persistently would take me out of class to do a program for illiterate kids, which led me to my love of reading and literature (this skill would come in handy later). This is also when I developed an irritation for authority, as I stepped out of line to help a boy crying, in reaction I was handed a detention this was my turning point towards the recognition of authority, I vowed to accept authority and punishment, however, never inflict unto others injustices of judgement or bias. I turned to apathy where others turned to anger. When Nicolas moved away to the country it left me once again alone. However, this time I faced the prospect of finding new friends with my social skills gradually improved as Mum gave me more and more independence and allowed me to deal with my anxieties by myself as I developed mental mechanisms to achieve physical happiness (such as junk food and such) she simply didn’t have much time as she preoccupied with her boyfriends of the time period. (Many of the happenings of this time period which I do not want to get into left me confused in ways of biology, something I still have not got over and hope to God I never do. Human reproduction and sexual feelings are a great evil within society and history and those actions are that conducted by that of the disturbed.). It must be hard trying to date with two children. I met a Girl let us call her Jane. Jane’s family were poor due to drug and alcohol use and she was continuously moving from house to house relative to relative. I never knew what happened to Jane it made me feel hopeless seeing injustice towards this smart, kind-hearted girl just because her parents were scum meant that she lived in constant humility and scawler. However, once she left I started eating a lot and I started spending my time reading books in a small playground tunnel in a small curved spine position. This was the worse year of my life, my teacher was stupid, she found me pretentious as I would constantly point out flaws in logic yet never addressed the issue. She was vain and obsessed with her looks. I shall skip the years 4-6 as they were typical, I eventually made friends and I continued to gain weight. It is now I face my next challenge people are saying that my weight-loss has gotten to a level that is dominating my life and I now need to talk to school psychologists. They have concluded that my extreme workout and diet stems from a feeling of inferiority and a need for gratification from other people along with some sort of repressed shit. (I hope I don’t sound like one of these hipster Melbourne dwelling people who parade their mental problems around, however I probably do) I’m not sure why I opened up about all these snapshots about my psychological life, but I’m sure yours is much more interesting. The link is that the vast majority of children receive no justice in the experiences that they acquire. Children in the DRC see the system of market capitalism destroy the local resources. Justice doesn’t come to the vast majority of children, not because they don’t deserve justice but because harsh experiences are inherent to the human condition. Therefore, of course justice doesn’t come to the innocent because that is simply the reality of the world. Injustice of experience of bias of events out of your control is simply the happenings of the Human species. It is however, systems in place that can be altered that prey upon these experiences and fundamental bias that is the topic of major contention within this expository essay.

In finality, Justice is a system that does not work because of the innate greed of people and the value we place over the possibility of advancement of self-interest rather than the care of everyone else. Until we can place our faith into systems based off moral faith and discourse we will still have injustice within the world. The only way that justice can truely be achieved is to give up on Human nature, therefore, the prompt: Justice does not always come to those who deserve it. Is as much apart of the Human experience as breathing oxygen and is reflected everywhere from economics to video games 


Frankenstein task (I did this one first. It may not be to as great a quality as my other work as my apathy is incredibly high towards this task I don’t particularly like the book although I do realise the importance of the task.)

To what extent is the creature in Frankenstein a reflection of Victor himself?

Frankenstein: The modern Prometheus is a novel written by Mary Shelley in 1818, and like the original myth of Prometheus it explores the idea of the naturalistic fallacy of the is-ought problem proposed by Kant and how we as a species seek something transhumanist to be developed to be an extension of our world and people. The rejection and obsession of Frankenstein is analogous to the plight of man’s grotesque obsession of reaching meaning in life in a generally absurdist or nihilistic reality which furthers reflects the constant of the human spirit towards existentialism. this essay shall be divided into three pillars of thought. Firstly, the philosophical themes within the book shall be discussed and it shall be linked back towards not only Victor’s psyche, however, the faults in Human nature itself. Secondly, themes of amorality in science will be discussed which will further delve into the debate of nature vs nurture. Lastly, the question of human ambition shall be questioned.

The happenings of the Monster is a reflection of Human compulsion of egotism and complexed god theorems. I believe that to an extent the creation of the monster proposes us a compilation of questions that unleashes the ideas of our deepest animal minds of controlling the emotional need of Humans to find meaning or to create meaning. This is symbolised with the creation of the Monster, which leads to further questions about the very happenings of science itself. Is science of the naturalistic amoral? Was Frankenstein’s creation of the Monster amoral? Within the book, Victor abandoned the Monster. Which leads the Monster to wonder the countryside and eventually find an adoptive family and learn to read. The Monster further learns to read and finds Victor’s lost notes which leads him to seek personal revenge upon Victor and his family. This is analogous to the hatred that Human kind has towards it’s alleged creator and how we as a species cannot retaliate against the constant feelings of melancholy towards our pointless existence. The creation of ‘the Monster’ is reflective towards the feelings of Victor’s hopelessness (And furthermore the turn to science, materialism and other humans to give meaning to our existence that happened towards the start of the 19th century). The reader is often guided towards the conclusion that Frankenstein’s Monster would have been eloquent and to a certain extent ‘Human’ if Victor were to engage him in the guidelines of personhood for like Victor himself he seeks meaning and validation in life. The Monster wishes to find solace in the comforts of a mate to reflect upon what his owner had hoped to achieve life with meaning. The monster plays out his natural urges in the void of a guidance from a creator for the Monster was not born inherently evil yet learnt to seek vengeance as a natural coping mechanism in the happenings of his rejection.

The happenings of the Human Spirit are based on the clinging of meaning in the mundane or finding meaning to fulfil the mundane. The constant nihilistic undertones of Frankenstein are prevalent throughout the book as the ambition for the concept of creating the Monster was based on individual amoral greed, however as the novel progressed it seems to delve into the human plight for meaning as the Monster follows firstly a natural progression of survival then into the Dostoevsky philosophy of finding meaning in his hatred for his creator and wish for meaning in life. The theme of unchecked ambition within the scientific community and how the human ambition was to Mary Shelly was a constant anxiety as leaps in technology and science were near boundless. The amorality of scientific community is represented by the creation to the Monster which reflects a deep disturbance that seemed to be reflected throughout the book of distrust in the human race and the technology of the early industrial revolution, the creation of the Monster also shows us that the struggle of scientific advancement was perceived as linear and constantly striving for enlightenment to Shelly.

Human ambition in the novel is the driving factor into the creation of the Monster, rather than any deep philosophical happenings it was the egotism of Victor Frankenstein in his youth that led to him playing God and ignoring the is-ought premise of the time. It is amoral unbound ambition that creates a god complex. Victor wasn’t born evil and his intentions were amoral he simply wanted to break the cycle of life and death to gain personal power. However, his ambition turned vicious and feral with the robbing of graves. This is the foreshadow to the eventual unbound ambition for meaning that led to the Monster to his hatred for his Creator. It was the realisation that Victor as a creator could not sustain and indulge the spiritual needs of a species when he cannot meet the spiritual needs of himself. It shows that transhumanism to the author is a problem as she believes in natural ambitious regulation and morality based on naturalism rather than the happenings of advanced technology.

The Monster is inherently apart of Victor as Victor is the maker of the Monster. However, the monster is inherently apart of humanity as it mimics our constant existential anxieties and even mimics our Dostoevsky philosophy of finding meaning in our pointless existence and mimics our distain in our creator “Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust?”. Victor plays God in an attempt to stabilise his ego and ambition and subconsciously create a creature that has what he has not a meaning and definite answer for existence. The Monster then tries to create life instead of seek revenge on his creator, the Monster tries to create life to achieve what he yearns for meaning and definite answer for existence. The Monster is not only a reflection of Victor, however a reflection of us as a species. The premise of the meaning of rotation is best described by Victor himself “So much has been done, exclaimed the soul of Frankenstein—more, far more, will I achieve; treading in the steps already marked, I will pioneer a new way, explore unknown powers, and unfold to the world the deepest mysteries of creation.”. The questions of Frankenstein’s monster are never-ending such as the aspect of scientific free will. The humanism and free-will of naturalistic scientific creations shall be a topic that will forever plague the scientific community

Term G&T 2

The article titled “An Intellectual Terrorist’s Manifesto: A Guide To Non-Violent Conflict In The Age Of Social Media” (which will simply referred to as ‘the article’ in this analysis) written by Hunter Maats explains how he has adopted the label “Intellectual terrorist” and discusses how his obnoxiously objectified “knowledge bombs”. This article invites thought on the fundamentalism, meaninglessness, and alienation of populations in the proceeds of our everyday events and thought. Maats delves into the ideas of non-violence in fighting fundamentalism. He also discusses the limitations placed on the thinkers of today to transcribe and spread an idea to a world of constant distractions. He uses appeals to name such as Rosa Parks, Steve Jobs, and Theodore Roosevelt to propose that people must use non-violence tactics of discussion and civil and societal disobedience to inspire change. Another key point is his philosophy on using entertainment to fuse ideological discussion to an audience to try and derail the effects of innate disregard by those dictated by identity politics. The structure of this analysis will detail firstly the devices used in the article to persuade and captivate the audience. Then I shall divide two paragraphs into a positive then negative content review.

Matts’ main grab to attention is the use of authority in success, by citing people such as Steve Jobs and Rosa Parks it leads to the subconscious feeling by the audience to agree with the author and be on the ‘correct and successful’ side of history. This accompanied with him using phrases such as “They wanted to create millions of people who were willing to Think Different” which uses a well known saying to create a link between the success and innovation of Apple computer with his proposition. Later in the article, he cites experts on presidential history and associated literature (that being “The bully pulpit” by Doris Kearns Goodwin) to practices of Theodore Roosevelt and he chooses to mimic his actions “Like Teddy Roosevelt, I have decided to make my Pulpit a Bully Pulpit”. This appeal to authority makes the reader feel as though Maats is a great man or is proposing great ideas simply because he is citing great people. Maats also creates a dynamic of class that being the unenlightened and those who follow his ideology “I called out certain individuals as Western Fundamentalists who preach a simplistic doctrine”. This further applies to nearly every label on the political right and equated them to the ideological happenings of ISIS “To those without purpose, they give purpose. People don’t join ISIS or Al Qaeda because it offers them nothing. They join because it offers a quick fix to a spiritual emptiness”. He also uses repetition of certain phrases which give them validity over the course of the article such as “Knowledge bomb” or “intellectual terrorist”. A summary of his technique would be he is particularly fond of appealing to ego and pseudo-intellectualism using several appeals to that generally left-wing class and relevant language to make his points.

Maats’ pillars of intellectual terrorism can be broken up into three major pillars of principles. Those being, the attention principle the second being the ridicule principle and lastly the self-hate principle. The first principle proposes that in the Western world that is filled with such super-fluidities of entertainment, media and tasks to accomplish we have secluded ourselves to the intellectual bias of confirmation and that we must have people appeal to an audience rather than an audience appeal to a philosopher. The second principle is a method of aggression in an argument or a methodology to use ‘edgy’, ‘relevant’ or ‘light ad-hominem’ structure when appealing to an audience to captivate them to further listen to what the speaker has to say. This principle stems from the use of speaker excellence in presentation and the ability to enact the third principle. The third principle is the self-hate principle which follows from the second principle to help guide the knowledge of the argument further. A speaker must laugh at his own methodology and character to sympathize and discuss with the opposite ideology. These principles are a guideline to help debate with the echo-chambers of the twenty-first century and to ensure that information isn’t forgotten however related back to a captivating speaker and to ensure that rather than alienating an innate audience we promote further discussions with ‘knowledge bombs’. These principles are solid and I agree with them, however, as my introduction suggested I do take up credence with Maats on a many of issues.

Maats constantly champions the ideals of planned ridicule as a way to engage in open discussion with individuals of the opposite ideology. However, within the same article, he explains his disdain when he was ridiculed by Atheism is Unstoppable who was compiling his semantic and presentation failure which does not engage the audience. This further discredits his arguments when he discusses the use of entertainment and attention of students and listeners when trying to communicate his ideas and ideological thought, therefore he either has to not complain when he is suggested as being a bad presenter or he has to nullify his support for presentation ridicule. This seems like a case of knit-picking and to an extent it is. However, cognitive dissonance seems to be a constant theme in this article… Most presently the proposal of ridicule of the opposite ideology he called out many libertarians, members of the Alt-Right and anarcho-capitalists with petty insults such as his ‘feud’ with Richard B. Spencer, this would be fine as it follows his guidelines of discussion inciting. However, in the paragraph previous he took up issue with the pretentiousness and aggressiveness of the Vegan community. This follows a theme of him contradicting himself in practice of ideology regarding inciting of discussion through “edgy” and “graphic” behavior and in that of idolisation. He uses Theodore Roosevelt as an example of who he wants to be in debate using “bully pulpit” of attending meetings of the other ideology to discuss his failings however he has not inspired enough discussion or people to be afforded this luxury. Even if he had, he has already alienated a massive segment of the population who oppose him with petty insults. Does he mean to attend the meetings of his opponents discuss his ideas then go home and insult his opponents? He seems to follow an ideology that dichotomy is a construct that doesn’t exist, however, it simply does. In reality, I believe Mr.Matts does not practice the ideology he preaches, however, lives in a state of constant judgment on a pedestal. His ideas of non-violence and civic nationalism is that of hindsight which promotes civil disobedience as that of a constant and necessary role of the citizen. However civil disobedience shouldn’t be championed as an act that every self-proclaimed martyr must do. For the institutions of fundamentalism are based of civil disobedience and even the Arab Spring was started as an act of civil disobedience.

In finality, Maats’ ideas were formatted well, he acquired information and evidence to support his ideals. If this piece were a critique of technicalities of writing and persuasive format the article would be quite great. However, the cognitive dissonance and blatant lack of self-awareness in this obnoxious self-aggrandizing individual has lead me to the conclusion that Maats ideas are irrelevant, disregarded and negatively connoted within my mind. Not because his ideas were terrible or heavily refutable however because he presented his ideas in the way he claims his absence from that being dry, unreliable, self-refuting and akin to the eco-chamber he protests. I applaud Maats’ ability to detest pretentious behavior and promote social media flurry as a means to ideas, however will engage in the former and revile at the idea of the latter. Hunter Maats is an individual whom inspires rage within me, however, I must see past my own ego and prejudice to see that the ideas he presented were reasonable. Indeed we must use social media as a platform to present ideas and inspire discussion in all facets of poison labels in society to present ideas that are more idealistic and revolutionary than the ones of the current era. We must also use his philosophy of self-ridicule and intellectual expansionism to our ideological opponents and use cultural happenings and entertainment to captivate an audience without alienating a population resulting in innate rejection perhaps Mr.Matts can learn a lesson from his own philosophy and not have a fluctuating mentality of the dichotomy of rationalism and emotion.



Persuasive piece.

(This piece is meant to be an exercise on persuasive writing and the points that I am making I hold to no great level of scrutiny and it was chosen purely for being a topical issue. My actual views on the issue are irrelevant. I did this to make sure that I wasn’t arguing from a place of pure emotion, however, using the secretive method of debate.)

As of writing this essay two major gun related crimes have happened in the U.S.A, that being the Chicago and Arizona massacres which had led to Eight people dead and Thirty-Three wounded. These massacres had once again proposed a challenge to the forum of socio-political thought, that being gun control. The attitude of a typical Australian is that gun control present in Australia is that of un-refutable success, however, this is a falsehood and ignores that the freedom to carry firearms is a most necessary right of a free man. The proposal of such a contention is not without deep quarrel within the realms of one’s thought on safety over liberty and many other issues that are proposed by the Two major camps of thought on this issue. Yet, after research into the topic of gun control an individual must realise that both mainstream parties of gun control lack nuance, originality, purpose and of current relevance, the issue of firearms is quite desensitised to the populace of the world simply because of the sample space and frequency of the possibilities of attacks using guns. therefore, the individual who discusses these issues should not be towing the ideological line of either party, however, should propose new ideas that address the systemic issues relating to guns. The three pillars of this essay shall consist of three major pieces of discourse, Firstly, how geography and culture influences the efficiency of gun regulation, the inefficiency of gun control, the infringement on the rights of the individual.

Firearm ownership is commonly linked to crime, which is a point which is valid, however, this shows a deeper systemic problem rather than a problem of sporadic spontaneous shootings by firearm owners. Switzerland has a population gun ownership rate per capita at approximately Sixty percent (Keith Krause, The Swiss Small Arms Survey of two-thousand and seven) and they have one of the lowest firearm related crime in the world. The murder rate there in two-thousand and fourteen was zero-point-four per one hundred thousand people (Swiss Federal Statistical Office; twenty-third March two-thousand-fifteen ) similarly in Norway and the Czech Republic the culture surrounding guns can be described as quite liberal. In comparison, the Mexican government imposed strict firearm control requiring strict licensing and creating a system of social promotion of not owning a firearm by making them very expensive. However, this initiative has led to the Mexican crime rate jumping upwards of Forty percent since Two-Thousand and Five and the murder rate in two-thousand and five (2) post-regulation was fourteen per one hundred thousand. Many of the populaces in Mexico have taken up illegal arms to protect their land such with the case of Colonia LeBaron began on May Fifth, two-thousand and nine, when kidnappers seized a sixteen-year-old boy and demanded a one million dollars ransom, this has led to him taking up illegal arms to fight local criminals going as far as saying “ think there would be less violence if there were more guns,” (1). This leads to a geography-culture issue rather than an actual innate firearm statistic jump. Therefore, we must conclude that the systemic issues of crime is the issues with gun-reflated crime. Systemic issues must be addressed like both genetic determinism and environmental issues rather than simp banning firearms. Firearm crime comes from systemic issues such as mental illness and genetic determinism, if we strip the citizenry of legal guns only smugglers will profit and criminals will be the ones obtaining firearms. Therefore, I prompt the reader to think that in first world nations are we not all culturally inclined to be given access to firearms? The solution is to deal with systemic issues such as crime, mental health, and social issues rather than ban the enabling object. If you clip the claws off a Tiger it still has teeth and means of hunting.

Firearms are an object of immense importance and for near two-hundred years, they have been used for farming purposes, self-defence and hunting. Firearms like knives are fundamental to the constant Human endeavor of efficiency, stability, and safety. To strip the rights of the citizenry of firearms is a slippery slope towards an increased crime culture. Such as in the United Kingdom where after handguns were banned homicides that include handguns doubled after five years of being banned that’s a jump from twelve homicides per one-million people to eighteen and still hasn’t returned to normal even after the general prosperity of the country and the incredible state funding for the police force. (3) The same can be guaranteed for other nations such as Ireland, Jamaica, and cities like D.C and Chicago. The linking fact is that the urban centers of these countries are home to psychological problems and poor living standards, so to a certain extent guns were keeping criminals hesitant to commit a crime in fear of retaliation and the incorporation of themselves into the harsher prison system that has arose due to stricter gun controls.

If you strip the populace of weaponry, you strip them of the right of stability from government and criminals The correlation of authoritarianism and the dependency on the welfare state has been linked to the disarming of the general populace many dictators such as Joseph Stalin “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”, Mao Zedong “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” Dictators from Hugo, to Chavez, to Adolf Hitler have proposed that to strip the citizenry of a well-regulated militia of armed citizen removes the potential for opposition to governmental tyranny. Whilst famous thinkers such as George Orwell to Gandhi believed in a free trade of arms. With this in mind may it be noted that many large population nations after disarming it’s populace had a great leap in authoritarian actions such as the heavy regulation of markets, the restriction of speech and the inciting of violence on peaceful demonstrators. We can see this in the Weimar republic, modern Ukraine, and many former Eastern bloc nations and if they are not subject to tyranny by the government they are held to the scrutiny of criminals. Thirty-Seven percent of state prison inmates who used, carried, or possessed a firearm when they committed the crime for which they were serving a prison sentence obtained the gun from a family member or friend, and other methods such as importing of illegal firearms are becoming ever more popular meaning that legally obtained guns are continuously becoming system of law-abiding citizens and illegally obtained firearms that the government cannot control are becoming the innate method of obtaining a firearm, if we remove the passage to legal gun ownership, only illegal gun ownership remains by those who wish to do harm. Also in Chicago and D.C where firearms are banned had nearly Two-Thousand gun murders as of last year which simply shows that firearms are a commodity that will sneak itself into every facet of the market if a desire is in place. When more people die from diabetes in the world than by guns each year it is absolutely abhorrent to try and disarm a citizenry that simply yearn to have self-determination in stability and safety with the legally acquired firearm.

The fact of the subject matter is that adopting a system of no nuance is a system destined to fail, in this world of fusion between entertainment and information we have lost the ability to critically think about a solution to a problem without leeching off previous thinkers using their quotes and mindlessly regurgitating their ideas which many people follow. The solution this article proposes in that the issue of guns be determined by a state-wide plan of redeployment of law and order. We must allow the free trade of registered guns however we must close loopholes such as gun fair and in-family purchases. We must regulate on basis of statistics the purchasing of guns to those in the lower socio-economic areas should be more rigorous than lower risk areas. Those statements may seem discriminatory to some segments of the population, however, the question must be raised. If an individual were to propose segmental regulation would it be efficient on the law and order system if we disregard the feelings of the populace in question? In finality, guns regulation is too strict in Australia and to achieve the prominence to claim that we have found a sure method of promoting safety, liberty in ownership and efficiency in the issue of guns we must account for all points that are made (and commonly disregarded) by thinkers on this issue and the systemic issues around it such as sex, racial determinism and culture and create a nuanced solution to a nuanced problem. To achieve a balance of deregulation in Australia we need to put in place laws that are effective and not strenuous on the state, we can achieve that by critically thinking and being skeptical to every argument including the one you are reading until we can reach a decision that upholds freedom in the first world.

(That little bit about critical thinking and nuance was added to give my writing some personality, as it was mostly me spitting out statistics up until that point. I may have done that incorrectly though.)

(1). http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/145996427/mexican-community-takes-taboo-stance-on-guns

(2) https://www.wsj.com/articles/murders-jumped-8-7-in-mexico-in-2015-first-increase-since-2011-1453400801

(3). http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

Man’s search for meaning

Man’s search for meaning entails firstly, the psychological and physical experiences of Austrian-born Doctor Viktor Frankl (May he rest in peace) who spent a collective of three years in the concentration camps of Dachau, the camp/ghetto Theresienstadt and Auschwitz and secondly his thoughts and discussion on his theory of logotherapy, also psychotherapy and existential anxiety.  I shall divide the book into three main points that the book portrays. Firstly, the view of hopelessness and hope. Secondly, the main contentions of logotherapy and Lastly, how in the western world this is still applicable.
According to Frankl in the concentration camp, as prisoners were living their day to day lives they clung to the hope of salvation before their inevitable death, this is found in death row prisoners and is called the delusion of reprieve. This illusion acts as a sort of improvised goal whilst the essence of existence is slowly being stripped away from the prisoners. Some may argue that in the camps simple things like work coupons and the pursuit of being a “capo or prison guard” driven the prisoners forward which would accommodate the theories of the will for pleasure and power, however, it is furthermore seen that these theories do not hold the up to the scrutiny of applicability in the facets of miserable happenings. For, a healthy man died when his illusion of salvation was stripped from him, when the war did not stop and he was still imprisoned his body shut down, he did not simply disregard his hope and replace it for the ventures of materials or power within the camp, or take for example the inmates employed within the gas chambers. They may have been killing fellow inmates because they were given special treatment, or it could have been that they followed the goal of salvation vehemently. In the camps, Frankl and his fellow inmates worked in awful conditions, and to give up hope was to give up life in these extreme circumstances. In these extreme conditions, men would take pleasure in scenery,  “art” or time they could talk about things like food or humorous events, the reason why they enjoyed these subjects so often was to subconsciously negate the short-term effects of an inevitable death and to achieve a goal that may never come. In these extreme circumstances many cling to hopes of a world outside the camp, to loved ones or to places of fondness, Frankl instead tries to create goals to corrensite with the life he lives. That being the clinging of love to his wife, no the love he used to have. As he details ” The salvation of man is through love and in love. I understood how a man who has nothing left in this world still may know bliss, be it only for a brief moment, in the contemplation of his beloved” The most important point that can be described as such “Man can preserve a vestige of spiritual freedom, of independence of mind, even in such terrible conditions of psychic and physical stress. That everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way”. For that a goal in a dire situation negates the feeling of long term hopelessness, and that the short-term sufferings and the feeling of misjustice will be negated by the clinging hope to the idea of that particular goal and to complete set tasks to achieve that goal.
 logotherapy is the third theory of drive in human psychology. The others being that of pleasure and power. Logotherapy offers the individual asking the question “what is the meaning of life?” not a definite answer that you would get from Freud or a biologist, however, it asks you a question of arbitrary abstract meaning, and in your responce the answer will be found. The meaning of life is dependent on the goals the individual sets out to problem-solve in their current predicament and to complete tasks. Therefore the Frankl philosophy of meaning can be described by Nietzche’s famous quote “He who has a why to live or can bear almost any how” and to find a why is to create meaning for the individual, and if you live in constant suffering you must create meaning within the life you live even in suffering, to become remarkable even with the potential stripped from you.
The theory of Logotherapy applies heavially in the West is home to the egotism and rampant induvidualism that catergarises our consumerist culture. For the collective is disregarded in the sense of importance and is replaced by the constant need for induvidual gratification, we ask for what is the meaning of existence if we live in the world of empiness and disconnect with our natural happenings? The West is full of material waste and many fall victim of being a profligate or wastrel, it is encouraged in fact. Whilst this creates a feeling of satisfaction for a short time it also creates a void of induvidual extensential crisis, which creates feelings of conformity amoung segments of the populance to achieve more material wealth or achieve similar goals as the instinctial mechanicism for goal createing is slowly being lost on this society. Therefore we need logotherapy in the west to try an negate the cycle of emptiness that many face in the turn of induvidual materialism.
In finality, Man’s search for meaning describes that if one cannot reach outside the confines of the life they live they shall never achieve the goal that they wish to set out nor if they never set a goal they shall be doomed to work within the confines of thier circumstance. This is applicable in every circumstance from a man who wishes to commit suicide to a man who wants a better job. One must have a goal to negate the effects of the short term, with the promise of the long term.
My criticism of this theory, (I feel quite disrespectful sending criticism to a theory that has actually been used by a holocaust victim.) is that the west is so open to ideas, marketplaces, and possibilities of wealth and success. I believe that this theory is less effective as time continuously goes on, for people become more and more cynical and greedy in material wealth that simple things like setting goals and striving to achieve them will be replaced further with stagnate in individual life and medication to give the illusion of placebo reform in personal life.

G&T like… Six?

By now, in my writing. You may find that I seem to be a conservative fellow when it comes to social policy, however, a few years back my views would be held considered left-wing. And as narcissistic as this may sound I feel as though my views haven’t changed, the left as an entity has changed. The welfare state has created a levitation towards the degeneracy that is cultural marxism. If you hold such views, I do apologize for any harsh language. However, it seems that millennials hold views that modern Western Society should fundamentally disagree with, be that the extreme views of black lives matter and the feminist movement in which certain people claim for their gender or race to be superior. And we all go through at one stage or another a communist phase, then we turn 6. And we realize that in practice Communism just creates death. I believe why the third wave Social Justice movement popped into existence is the left’s focus on academia rather than practicality, and the way we bring up the children of this generation to be weak (we can see this in people not screaming at their kids anymore, or the restrictions on use of words in pre-school and primary school education). My point being that I know my bias definitely will show here. And that I really have no place in calling other ideologies degenerate because we really need to work on our compromise skills, for debate in the next coming years will be the “Social Justice Advocates” trying to de-platform the “regressive left” and the “regressive left” and right-wing screaming “cuck”. So in terms of philosophy and debate, we live in such enlightened and fascinating times. And the only political issue that matters to me is the issue of climate change and space exploration. Our Earth is slowly dying, we are destroying all our forests so that we can breed more cows for dinner, the cows are creating more methane than some countries and segments of people, not to mention our direct impact such as air, plastic and waste pollution. So we are destroying ecosystems with our pollution and we are slowly freezing ourselves and at this point, we have no way off this planet, still, people only want to talk about Trump and Hillary. Humanity… What a joke. Anyway, here’s Game of Thrones.

^ reading over that, makes me seem like a moody bloke. So here, have a picture that I drew in paint instead of doing homework.


Game of Thrones as a series is that it places the reader in the spot of an aristocrat and you openly know that they wage wars and abuse serfs. However, you empathize with the nobility and want them to succeed in their goals to control other human beings it is akin to the book “Lolita” by Vladimir Nabokov, to which you essentially empathize with a pedophile, but because he is narrating the book it gives us a warped perception of morality. I shall write three paragraphs explaining firstly giving an analysis of what Marxism is, it’s practice, origin and what it hopes to achieve, secondly I shall evaluate the Game of Thrones universe (Hehe. Khal Marx). Lastly, I shall compare all the references to Marxism in the Game of Thrones.

Karl Marx and Frederich Engels’ two most popular evaluations and theory books were “Das Kapital” and “Communist Manifesto” in which they delved into two major ideas first a conflict theory which stated that the proletariat (The worker’s of Germany and the world) were constantly in conflict with the aristocracy (And to defend Karl Marx, what he was stating is historically correct). And the theory promotes that a Jacobin revolution must arise to overthrow the central government and capitalist system. Secondly, in cohesion with the revolution establish a system to which the proletariat would acquire all profits that he/she makes, and that money and classes as institutions of man would dissolve and people would work for common materials and capital essential for life. No one man shall have drastically more or less than the common man. And whilst that is an extreme theory, for us to reform capitalism we must look further into his theory. He often talked about “entfremdung” or “alienation” in production where he thought that human nature is guided by the principles of physical production and that machines and production assemblies taking the job of the craftsmen lives worker’s unhappy and irritated for example, a table being made by a craftsman
is something physical that the craftsman may take pride in, however when it is mass-produced the worker feels useless and replaceable. Marx also saw a fundamental problem of capitalism (and really the transition of pre-industrial to post-industrial society) that being the foundation of monopolies, where workers are held to a certain scrutiny of a central business and cannot acquire any other work except for that of the monopolized business that encourages the abuse of the worker. (2) Marxism was a fundamental good, It is near useless today after the establishment of the welfare state and trust busts of the industrial world (3)
Game of Thrones is a fantasy novel series that takes place in a fictional world of three main continents that being Westeros, Essos, Sothoryos and the Summerset Isles (Which is a representative of the real life, Western Europe, the Balkans/Eastern Europe, Africa and India). Westeros being a land reminiscent of feudalist Britannia which creates a mode of production on serfdom and hegemony of the ruling class. Essos being a land of more centralized republics representing Italy and Albania. Further east being steppe nomads or “Khal hordes” which represents former Mongolia and the land of the Qazaq. And southeast being the slave states that being the Ottoman and Barbary slave states of the period. Sothoryos is a land that is scarcely visited by outlanders and has strange cultural rituals, representative of Africa and the Summerset Isles have a lucrative trade network akin to that of the Indian trading network. Game of Thrones also details the adventures of nobles of several houses which cement their power in liege-lords of various different fiefs and lesser houses. And of current, the Eight major houses are as follows: The Lannisters’ house of the West, The House of Bolton of the North, The house of Arryn to the East, The house of Martell to the South, The house of Baratheon, The house of Tyrell and the house of Greyjoy. And they all are different in wealth, governing styles and power, they all have the aspiration to place a member of their respective families on the Iron Throne which dictates some central power in the relatively decentralized and laissez-faire world. And of current, the faith militant has taken control of the de-facto capital city (that being King’s landing), Daenerys Targaryen has taken control of a former slave army, the kings are fighting over control of the throne and the Lord-Commander of the Night’s Watch “Jon Snow” is dead (which will become relevant later.)

Game of Thrones references Marxism as it is mocking the Human history and endeavor. The characters such as “The High Sparrow” and “Daenerys Targaryen” both promote the equality among classes, however, they come from positions of high birth (which may be a reference to how in modern society it is commonly accepted that change comes from the 1% rather than the masses of people). As I mentioned before with the “Lolita” reference Game of Thrones empathizes and creates a bond between the nobility and the reader, which I regard as the historic view and link between the common peasantry/serfs (viewer) and the Nobility (characters) throughout history. I may ramble on about the constant a reference to Human history, however, I wish to focus on three main principles which dominate three main time periods. Firstly, the war for the throne and Jon Snow’s death, the war for the throne represents the historic plight of the worker during the pre-industrial and early industrial period, where the peasants would join the constant struggle for king-making (profiteering) of the various Kings (Capitalists) even though they were apathetic to the cause they did it to make a living. A quote from the character Set Jorah Mormont “The common people pray for rain and health they don’t care what games the high lords play.” makes clear the author’s (George R.R Martin) opinion about the modern and historic climate of hierarchy. Also, the death of Jon Snow shows us the importance of birth in the pre-industrial period and gives us an insight of George’s opinion about how he feels that even today, injustices in birth exist. The second point is the High-Sparrow using his holy crusaders the “faith militancy” to secure an establishment of the division of power, this represents the period of time of mass Jacobin rebellions after the first world war. For after the devastating first world war (the war of the Five Kings) and the unfair treaty of Versailles people of poorer nations fought the government to push for the appeal of solidarity with the common folk (Spoilers: Oh and apparently in the T.V show Cersei became Queen of the Seven Kingdoms, which if you look at that in comparison to the German timeline, that being the post-war Jacobin Bavarian uprisings then the rise of Adolf Hitler, then you can make the obvious correlation). And finally, Daenerys Targaryen, she represents the 1930s-1960s that being the transformation to the welfare state (such as the new deal). She uses force to free slaves (social justice and better working conditions) to amass an army to retake the Seven Kingdoms. And whilst her intentions seem good and well natured under the shade of darkness and behind closed doors, she often talks about her selfish intentions to reclaim the seven kingdoms and reinstate her family. Which represents how during that period businesses use tactics such as employment aspects to achieve their goals but they would continuously try and dodge regulation and abuse workers and make the most profit.

In finality, we can make a definite connection between marxism and the transition from feudalism to industrialization. If I may try and predict the end of this tale following the timeline we have created Jon Snow will work hard and seize power (just as the powers birth no longer determine success). Deaneries will ultimately fail as the people will mutiny against her in exchange for another king (or employer). Finally, the small folk or brotherhood without banners will steadfastly gain more power ( the consumer will become the most important thing and the decision of the worker and consumer is valued).

My frivolous notes and opinions on the subject matters discussed above.
2). Marxism in academia sounds lovely in theory, however, as we can see in practice it led to breadlines, starvation, and gulags. Using scientific theory we can place Communism as an idyllic ideology that should never be tried again. However, that is where many fellow leftists would disagree. The theory of Contemporary Marxism confuses me, we live no longer in a serfdom class society, and while the society of present doesn’t follow the exact theorem of worker means of production, the status quo promotes state services and a welfare state for the lower classes. Why should we progress down further in the branch when we can see that the system of current promotes the best of both systems? I must admit that whilst I find the ideas of Marxism and Communism appealing (more so the former) I would never campaign nor promote communism in Australia. The system of current allows for even the most disadvantaged child to apply themselves use state services to get educated, use public roads to commute places and generally use state funds to gain equal footing to even the most privileged and affluent children. If that child applies oneself to areas of study and works hard in both academia and life, in general, it can near definitely earn a fantastic living for itself. And the taxes they pay repay the state and further funds the cycle of wealth. However, communism and Marxism instead of proposing an equality of opportunity the theory proposes equality of outcome which leads to mostly no innovation or goals for the populace to acquire wealth and land. That is why I believe Communism ignores both economic theory and human nature. (I just angered a bunch of La Trobe students)

3) That’s just one of my edgy, misguided teenage opinions. I have a lot of those apparently. My most edgy opinion is a plan to encourage 10 days to 182 days state service (in either military, policing (100+ days), administration (60+ days) or labour (30+ days) you would get paid handsomely for the time with good superannuation and in return you would be granted a great reward “the rights of the pure citizen” which entitles you to extra state income and/or lower taxes. What is your most edgy opinion, feel free to not answer

F&T 4

Evolution is the biological stance of a plasticity to the development of species, physical and emotional changes are divided between factors of species variation such as environment and physical and psychological differences in all humans such as race*, gender and social affairs. When I state the biological plasticity I am describing the use of environment on species development (meaning that if a species develop in jungles than that species will have long arms for use of trees, however if a species migrates than this will change according to the environment (On similar record and I’m sure that this is redundant but I’d feel at fault and amiss if I didn’t mention this question (please forgive me if this is a tangent, but I feel it necessary). Why Chimpanzees still exist alongside Humans if we supposedly evolved from their sub-species? The simple answer is we didn’t, all great apes from Africa and Asia evolved from sub-species mutation and minuscule amendments from a common ancestor. So whilst we were evolving in Africa as the Homo Habilis our common ancestor group were spreading out to new geographical areas and either inter-breeding forming new species or going through the long process of Darwinist (Or Lamarck) micro-evolution. That our common ancestor died out due to not adapting as fast as her sub-species.)). This can play a role in two key ideas which will form my paragraphs and the last being the relevancy to “The Outsiders” as a concept

One: Why evolutionary psychology plays into the individual today and what characteristics are still present also, why are Humans near inherently violent yet moral?

Two: Nature over nurture and how evolutionary behaviourism acts upon the actions of individuals

Three: Why is this relevant to in “The Outsiders”?

Individuals of the philosophical persuasion often ask why is it that Humans are so inclined towards evil, greed and violence, whilst other members of the great ape family such as Bonobos are less inclined to innate violence and work (even with their enemies) to achieve fairness (we can see the community in the zoo studies which taught us Bonobos would free one another and share the food instead of taking all of it)? The answer to this question is long and complicated and to fully answer we must return to a time of early cellular life. (Cellular life and where/how it originated is a question that encourages further discussion on theology which I do not want to involve myself to avoid offence and wish to simply talk off facts) Cellular lives which mainly populated the ocean which was plentiful of all resources and encouraged cellular life to evolve to suit abundance. Abundance granted us to develop bigger bodies (similar to that of the Coelacanth and Caldes) which can be supplied by the abundance of plant and animal life in the oceans. When we evolved to suit the falling water availability and inadequacy of food the organisms that would soon be humans started to colonise the shores with gradual changes. Humans gradual changed from near-reptilian organisms to heavily amphibious Ape creatures. However this point in the timeline circa Seven million years ago we diverged from our common ancestor with microevolution with mimicry of our common ancestor and by environmental evolution and mutation we became adaptable to our environment, however, not without cost. It is said that we evolved in the Riverlands of Africa and more precisely Ethiopia, and archaeological finds can narrow it down to Awash river, this land is a resource poor and this lead to “gang” or “tribe” mentalities to protect resources (oh and to spread genes more efficiently). Many Ape species fought and created raiding parties to steal resources and spread their genes to protect their tribe (sound familiar?) (we can even see this with the Male bone structure being more protective than female bone structure so that males can raid better). Whilst this was happening the Bonobos who were living in the lower rivers that were slightly more abundant (also geographically peaceful in comparison to the upper rivers) and they self-domesticated themselves by females dictating breeding measures with nonaggressive apes. Violence is innate to humans because our evolutionary background dictates competition rather than compromise. Throughout all of history we see that domestication came and we became more peaceful but the tribe mentality never fades because we love our resources and breeding prospects. Even today we are competing with one another, we shall go back to the birthplace of Humans the Riverlands in Africa where African poachers are competing with one another to hunt, skin and capture the most bonobos to gain resources for our “tribes”. However, as the famous latin saying goes Homo homini lupus (Man is a Wolf to Man) however we are a wolf to anyone who threatens our resources.

Psychology of the human species is quite odd. Seldom will you find a species that is so manipulatable in the sense of ideology, pride and prejudice, the ideas that are ingrained into us as a species can be attributed to two major categories. Indoctrination of a populace or individual in time of uncertain circumstance. The second category is innate behaviourism from birth, and the debate stems from whether we as a populace are more inclined towards natural impulse or ingrained behaviour.

Now have a random hypothesis:

(This is a theory that I have been thinking about for a few hours) I have a hypothesis that I believe may have some validity (however, I’m not a scientist therefore, the hypothesis holds no ground outside of my observations and worldview) I have talked about nature vs nurture and how I believe that today we are driven heavily by nurture rather than nature. Yet, this has given me an idea that is quite akin to the genetic determinism theory. However, my hypothesis takes it one step further and is summarised in one question “If equations of physics and molecular biology show us that behaviourists of particles and cells replicate over periods of generations of replacement, what if larger mammals such as Humans have perceptions, physical behaviours and critical thinking skills are determined by indoctrination of not only by figures of your family but by actual pre-existent genetic and physiological preconditioning. For example, racism may be a genetic trait that is fostered by indoctrination. An individual may say that is extreme, to which I’d agree however let’s do something more minuscule. Twins that were separated (both named James) shared exactly the same lives from career prospects, hobbies, both got divorced, had similar ideology and pets, this may be a coincidence however this hypothesis gains more credibility each time an adoption study comes out that shows that the offspring shares interests, political views and even habits of that of their biological parents (and If I may share an anecdote here for a second my brother scarcely` knew my father and he didn’t have time to gain traits, but many of his habits and ideology fall very similar to my father (I have been taking mental notes whenever this has happened)) this has led me to believe that all behaviours especially physical habits that we may possess are innate. However, mental standings and processes may be corrected over time, physical habits that are innate cannot be corrected so easily. I would attribute this to chemical and muscle retention that may transfer through offspring we can see that this happens to a lesser extent physically in mammals and even has small traces of credibility in mitosis too which lends credibility to the theory. Or I may just be analysing this, not sure.)

The Outsiders promotes many prompts of writing, which is why I believe it was chosen as a book to read when children are starting to achieve the pinnacle of critical thinking in their lifetime. The Outsiders when it is viewed via the window glass of a biologist is an allegory for the human experience and natural aggression of humans for senses of pride and resource. From the Greaser-Soc divide to the murder of Bob to the realisation of likeness we can see that the allegorical devices for the absurdity of the human nature is shown in The Outsiders.


I read many of the works of Darwin, Phil Mason and Sam MacLeod, Dr. Anjeanette “AJ” Roberts for reference.

Terms and notes:

*(Read the bell curve if you wish, it is used in many white pride circles, but it gives us a view of the controversial opinion of innate intelligence based on genetic determinism. However, those who like to say that “Africans are inferior humans” I would reply that according to pure statistic Africans didn’t interbreed with the Neanderthals meaning that Sub-Sahara  Africans are the most human out of all of the other races. Which gives them no more right over anyone.)

Natural selection: The fittest to adapt to a new environment will be the species that can survive

Genetic determinism: The relations of subjects of race, gender and many other aspects on abilities or behaviours of people


Now, I wish to create some paragraphs that describe the mentality of violence on characters in The Outsiders  (Written in a rushed manner as I was totally incompetent and forgot all about it but then remembered just as I was about to sleep, it was like that Spongebob episode. Apologies)

Why violence is carried out and opinions of violence are homogeneous in near every aspect. Each group can be categorised into three that being the jingoists, reluctant subscribers, and the oblivious companion. This model goes into near all groups not just the Soc-Greaser divide in the book. The model can show the philosophical leanings of the pack mentality. Not just the individual’s leaning towards the issue of violence but the casus belli they use to justify such action against the other group or neutrals. With this we see the Greaser-Soc divide turn into a discussion of Ceaser level defensive imperialism and a discussion into how this applies in the real world.

The Jingoists would encompass the feelings of violence of Tim Shepard, Dally and Bob. They are the extremes of the spectrum. They strive for expansion of gang activity and view the other group as inferior and would stoop to a many a level and tactic to rid the greasers or sock of the upper hand or chance in any event. They have been ingrained with a near pseudo-speciation complex where they view the other group as inferior to them. They don’t use justification to convince anyone that they need to fight. This group simply does it out of pure hate or revenge. “The Jingoists” opinions on violence is that is that they will advance their own or gang’s agendas as detailed in the explanation of Dally “The shade of difference that separates a greaser from a hood wasn’t present in Dally. He was as wild as the boys in the downtown outfits, like Tim Shepard’s gang. In New York, Dally blew off steam in gang fights” And to detail the Soc’s jingoist Bob and his actions in jumping Johnny “but I had seen Johnny after four Socs got hold of him, and it wasn’t pretty. Johnny was scared of his own shadow after that.” Which goes to show that the gang mentality can be both collectivist and individualistic in nature. However, both push the agenda of the gang to promote pseudo-speciesism towards the other group.

The reluctant subscribers would be centrists such as Cherry, Ponyboy, and to a lesser extent Randy and Sodapop. They realise the other group’s position and that the fighting and conflict is pointless and that so much could be achieved if they worked together. But the gangs have too much a history shrouded in a cult of personality of their leaders. Therefore, they subscribe to a gang mostly for self-interest and not because of a deep psychological or ideological hate for the other group. One of my favourite quotes from the book (from Cherry) is “”I could just tell. I’ll bet you watch sunsets, too.” which details that behind all the ideological games they are all people who are bringing detriment to their communities. They don’t have any justification besides self-interest.

The last group who are the obvious companions, which encompasses everyone in the gang who doesn’t fit the other two roles. They simply are a part of the gang due to the circumstance of a greater nature. They have a negative view of the other group, but they are simply there to be enablers and pawns in the chess master’s game. They do not have any justification and follow the Jingoistic I don’t have any quotes that truly detail this. However, just think about the character Steve. He was useless story wise but played roles in all the gang lucrative activities and rumbles.

A common theme is that, from the information gathered from the book, the Soc-Greaser divided doesn’t have a casus belli nor do the groups have an official bellum finis however just a conglomerate of individualistic ambitions which will not be achieved. This shows us how pointless the gang warfare and riots are in the modern world. With little justification and no bellum finis, they are meant to spiral into total devastation until they are fighting over who will rule the ashes they once called their communities. Violence isn’t justified in this book…

(Oh, and thank you for letting me do another book for the next task, as much as I like The Outsiders as a piece to, I seldom can stand writing about this wretched book anymore. My sincerest apologies for the ramble here, however, I feel like we’ve covered the entire Human endeavour and how it relates to this book and these characters. So my deepest and most sincere gratitude and gratefulness is extended to you for ridding me of the book for the next task.)

G&T poetry

Nothing Gold can stay by Robert Frost

Nature’s first green is gold, Her hardest hue to hold. Her early leaf’s a flower; But only so an hour. Then leaf subsides to leaf. So Eden sank to grief, So dawn goes down to day. Nothing gold can stay.

Change by Kathleen Jessie Raine

Said the sun to the moon,

You cannot stay.


Says the moon to the waters,

All is flowing.


Says the fields to the grass,

Seed-time and harvest,

Chaff and grain.

You must change said,

Said the worm to the bud,

Though not to a rose,

Petals fade

That wings may rise

Borne on the wind.

You are changing

said death to the maiden, your wan face

To memory, to beauty.

Are you ready to change?

Says the thought to the heart, to let her pass

All your life long

For the unknown, the unborn

In the alchemy

Of the world’s dream?

You will change,

says the stars to the sun,

Says the night to the stars.


(Sorry, if this piece is lackluster, I’ll be honest I have trouble writing about poetry. Partly because I find the romanticized writing and ideas to be tedious in analysis and generally soporific in nature and partly because I’m not Danish)

Change is a constant in everyone’s life, as much as we would like to change and have full control we must swallow our anxieties and take comfort in a system, institution or entity in life that is a constant. Three comparative paragraphs shall compose of these three ideas that are being conveyed in the two poems. The three being relevance, device, and change.  The relevancy that both poems have on the outsiders, how the ideas of the three texts are similar to one another.

The traditionalist poetic devices are remarkably absent from both pieces. Only really using alliteration, assonance, metaphor and repetition. Lastly, Both these poems are similar in the sense that they both highlight the change of individualistic happenings of change and worry, they also both use nature as analogies.

The outsiders has many themes which all play off one another. However, change is a theme that will puzzle even the most laborious individual, for change happens in the story with the running away and the enlightenment of likeness in PonyBoy and to a lesser extent Johnny, but by the end of the book it shows us a cycle that cannot be broken. However, Robert Frost’s poem that is shown in the book gives us a subtle apprise into what the author was trying to communicate. (I may be horribly over analyzing this, but hear me out) The poem details the clockwork of human nature in the circumstance of nurture behaviorism, like much of gang violence at the time in the sixties (especially the Skinhead movements) in was just needless violence because of systemic issues of difference. I believe what the poem was trying to communicate with us that no matter how far PonyBoy and Johnny go, and how they try to differ themselves from the city gang violence and how peaceful (or gold) that they may be they will always be in an endless cycle of violence, no matter how minor. And the most prevalent line in the poem “Nothing gold can stay” symbolizes the eventual death of Johnny, the return of PonyBoy to the gang, the rumble and generally the mentality by the end of the book that is no different from the start of the book.

Nothing gold can stay uses aspects of both alliteration and assonance in words like leaf and grief. And uses powerful imagery but many prospects of traditional poetry are gone such as repetition and stanzas. I would have enjoyed to see more repetition in the poem, it would have added a more chilling effect every time “nothing gold can stay” was uttered. In “change” the conventions of poetry were completely thrown out. But whilst it didn’t follow exact convention (besides the use of repetition and assonance) however it uses great use of imagery to relate back to a very broad point so that everyone can use personal experience. They both use unconventional poetic styles. But they both use similar words to create a flow.

These poems use nature as an analogy for change because, the authors wanted to highlight that every living creature experience change in a near-clockwork state and that things like say, growing up is inevitable and must happen as detailed in “Her early leaf’s a flower; But only so an hour.” in Frost’s poem and Said the sun to the moon, You cannot stay. Change” in Raine’s poem. It is also detailed that the leisure and luxury that we face as an institution must one day go. That even in nature, peace and harmony is not a clockwork feature of the human endeavor and that hedonism on all the fruits of life will eventually stop and the individual shall return to the monotony of their life. However “change” proposed that also through the struggles of your life you shall change to reach enlightenment in ways of practice and clockwork, however not nature.

In finality, we see that the use of poetry in media creates an undertone of the physiological intrigue of what is happening to the characters, in this book it shows us that the cycle of the human psyche is that of nature working in clockwork with nurture to unleash the human prejudice. And that no matter how far you go, and how your ideology changes you are still prone to hate, bias and mentality of your upbringing.

And now, I have created my own cringe edgy teenage poem just to demonstrate how well I did in primary school English class.

From moving to disapproving

Glooming all the way

From growing up to growing old

Fear is destined to behold

A glint of light so far away

Which grows stronger everyday

You manage to convince yourself

That soon the light shall pass

Lights will come back

And like a knife it leaves you manged and you realise.

Change is the essence of life

G&T task: Dairy of a revolutionary

Note: I’m not some sort of subhuman degenerate who goes around sending praise to Che Guevara and wears that horrid shirt (Okay the shirt looks pretty cool) around my university. But this could just be my pseudospeciation playing up again. But anyway the revolution brought much good and much evil, here’s Che Guevara’s diary entry after the Cuban revolutionaries march on Havana in 1959 and the then President Batista leaves the country. Oh, and It’s in English because Spanish is lame.

Diary entry: Jan 1, 1959

It’s been a long time since we left Argentina on the “Gramma”, and as I sit here overlooking the liberated capital with people up in arms singing in crowds to our glourious revolutions and in the streets shouting in mountainous support. The government tried to eradicate us, the imperialists tried to starve us, the people tried to flee us. But finally, we have won!

However, this did not come without some sacrifice, of course I think back about the revolution and the goals it set with it and how we achieved this. Batista was simply a puppet of American imperialists. And our forefathers that set out the Cuban Manifesto laid it out for the workers. Batista was just another enemy of the manifesto. The works of Marx and other revolutionaries such as Lenin and Trotsky will guide our revolution to the victory. For the people cannot think for themselves until they are liberated.

Batista’s regime has made it harder to enact any sort of protectionist policy at all, giving the imperialists all the power to the means of producing Cuban goods. This isn’t the first time that I have seen the imperialists rear its ugly head in the face of the Leftist worker’s world that is Sud America. When the United States of Central America split and the forces of the individual cultures took reign in their areas the majority leftists in Guatemala implemented a leftist government to uphold their ideals. The CIA saw the people implementing what they want a terrible thing and had them overthrown. This created fire in my heart which never died and to this day never weakened.

In the mountains those many years ago we had a sizeable force. And I used them to attack in guerrilla formations, guerrilla tactics have always been a tactic of the strong. Marching in formations and all that nonsense did no good when it came to actual combat., I remember the feeling that I got when I first killed a man. My eyes widened, and my nostrils flared, my head spun and most importantly. I felt seldom remorse at all. I scarcely had to justify it.

The extensions of the “murders” were extended to peoples who supported the Imperialist Batista, I also had no remorse for them. They were an enemy of the revolution and had to be stopped. I would not reverse a single murder if I could. Nor did I care when I led families into the firing squad for opposing the revolution be that, degenerates under the banner of Batista or those opposing us… I simply didn’t care. Well that isn’t exactly true, it’s just every time I dictated it was for the advancement of the people, the people cannot be liberated if we allow the blind to lead and tell them their opinion, and a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate, to further the plight of those I constantly, tirelessly and aggressively sought out to free. Revolutions need to be grown through the ruthless aggression of the strong to stop those who wish profit off the sweat of the worker without supplying them with the means to which they create.

However, now the garrulous speaker and charismatic Fidel has put me in charge of prisons and guaranteed me a spot at the national bank. The revolution is over, for now. But I cannot see myself sitting here while workers of the world are exploited by the aristocracy who grow wealthier off nothing but the sweat on other people’s brow. However, before that, the Cubans need the guidance of a nation also run by the workers. The United Soviet Socialist Republics should happily trade with us. We will show those coward dogs of the Imperial U.S that we are a force that cannot be stopped. But our revolution will create a global tide of support. And for the nation state to uphold the views of the worker.

I have a vision, where the collective society is submissive to the government and the government is compassionate to the worker. The worker works not for profit or personal gain but for the good of the community. That is why I work the sugarcanes and sleep in the office. I feel if everyone was like me, the world would be a much better, compassionate and plentiful place for the worker and the workers of the world. And I will achieve this through any means necessary. I seldom care if people die under my watch because I know that a few lives is nothing in comparison to the awe-inspiring and glorious future that we have planned out.

G&T revolutionary movements.

The revolution of men changes the form of governance or structure toward one cruel system to another. But, as it is self-evident as the system changes in favour of the plebeian or a more “representative” system, that inefficiency and corruption grows within the nation state or populace. And to which the continuous plight of man and social thought continue we doth ask ourselves. Have we truly evolved towards the true enlightenment? And what system ought to be imposed to represent the people and/or to maximise efficiency? That I do not know… However, I can say with great confidence and mindfulness that it is not democracy (Oligarchy, at this point), nor is it a monarchy, and just like the latter, the former will crumble and fall and either a new system will be devised or the latter, once again in reactionary nature will be imposed… That probably made me sound like a pretentious douchebag.

I have chosen to do the American colonist revolt from the Crown (1765 – 1783) and the French Revolution (1789–1799) both to which are gargantuan in immense relevance and still has substantial impact on the world today (like arguing with your neo-tory friends on Facebook about the pros and cons of the “ancien regime ap euro”)  both movements sparked colonial nationalism, forced the Ancien regimes of Europe to treat plebeians and colonial subjects with more dignity and to a certain degree expanded the free market. Yet both are vastly different in what they were trying to achieve, what they did achieve and how the world viewed each in terms of significance.

The French revolution, was a revolution with so much promise to change the face and to overthrow the confines of the status quo of the natural contract, with promise of equality egalite fraternity, (these prospects made famous by Maximilien Robespierre in a speech regarding the national guard) however this promise was dissolved maybe not on purpose but on happenstance.

To explain the topic sentence, we must see the circumstance the French revolution is the result, like many revolutions of three build ups. Firstly, crippling debt after the Seven year’s war*(1) and from funding the French revolution, no money left to maintain any administration cost or upkeep >50% of the GDP going to debt repayment, a terrible harvest and finally a new hatred for the other powers of the world and the administrators of the nation state (these problems aren’t happening in Europe today however. *cough*). This led to the plebeian Parisians of the third estate to question those of the first and second estates*(2). And after they met years after the 7 years war when the uproar was at it’s height (They hadn’t met in near a several score). They were dealing with solutions to reform the military and to fix the economy and after several a firm debate, no compromise and general incompetence on all sides of the parliament. The third estate demanded a new national fraternity. And after it was declined and their estate dissolved for the session the third estate gathered in an indoor tennis room and set out an oath and convention to which set out an agreement to all the representatives. They would not surrender, nor would they give up, nor would they work for the apparent profligate, wastrel aristocracy until a constitution was implemented to achieve checks and balances within parliament. Then after a few days of revolting and the Aristocracy were running out of food. They put Paris under martial law. In response the revolters siege the Bastille and arm themselves then the average Frenchmen had freedom, security and property ( foundation for more free market ideas later on, and more democratic ideas from Jacobin-led radicals). And whilst the prospect of a constitution was feasible and acceptable to most of the revolutionaries of France, this soon turned into a peace term that did not meet the requirement for normality according to the Jacobins that wished for full democracy. In retaliation, the national assembly massacred the Jacobins. So rebels were slaughtering rebels* (3). Emperor Leopold the Second of the Holy Roman Empire and King William Frederick the Second of Prussia agreed upon an agreement to reclaim France for the Monarchy (These actions were heavily inspired by national interest). The national assembly in retaliation preemptively invaded the Holy Roman Empire to seize land, Prussia joined the war to defend the Holy Roman Empire. And when King Louis XVI (16) of France was caught encouraging Prussia to join the war. He was deemed an enemy of the revolution and was guillotined as with some 16,000 enemies of the revolution (mostly aristocrats of the day). With this brought the dissolution of the Monarchy, elections, the implementation of a constitution and most importantly the appointing of Napoleon Bonaparte to lead the French armies to victory over Prussia and Austria. Him being considered a war hero to the French people, (and defeating the coups of opposition) he officially took office in 1799 and dissolved much of the revolutions implementations of years previous. The revolution may be summarised in four opinionated quotes of the revolution from the period.

“Any institution which does not suppose the people good, and the magistrate corruptible, is evil.” – Maximilian Robespierre

“I perceive that in revolutions the supreme power rests with the most abandoned.” –Georges Jacques Danton

“God has always been hard on the poor” –Jean-Paul Marat

and most importantly:

“Citizens, the revolution is established on the principles which it began”

Napoleon Bonaparte. Which truly describes the manaughtny of it all.

The French revolution was important simply because the ideas that it put forward inspired liberals and Jacobins in Europe. The ancient regime and natural social contract were dead. And slowly populaces would see this. The French revolution put forward the idea of nationalism by the people. And that the framework of the world should not be spearheaded by the aristocracy, however everyone. This revolution’s flame of ideas died out, but the heat that it left in the market of ideas stayed, and it still does to this day.

The American Revolution is hypocritical to the foundation to which it was founded upon. And to which they disregard the very essence of the documentation to which they hold dearly.

The American revolution was the gathering of revolutionary movements (1765 – 1783) in the thirteen colonies that to which Britannia held in the southern right flank of North America. And the principles to which they set out to achieve was the right to self-governance. A centralised banking system for the bank that was spearheaded within the colonies. And total separation from Britannia and her law makers*(4) they had many protests such as the Boston tea and rum rebellion which saw the act of disposing and destroying of imported goods to protest the tea and import taxes. and to which they fought the British domestically and established the central continental congress to which they would discuss matters of state. And within one meeting of the continental congress. They drafted a document which entails every man’s right to self-determination of the premises of God’s foundation. And they ended up winning the war with intervention on the part of the Netherlands, France and Spain. This sent mass fabrication of statehood across the world. And set out in founding the American and Jefferson methods of governance. Both statements from nationalism, nation fraternity and American governance is still prevalent even today. However,

The key issues to which they debated was the ideas of central planning vs state’s rights many proponents of both led to from the start of the nation’s history a divide between north and south. Federalists vs Whigs on the stage of world events. This links to the topic sentence because the very revolution that was fought and was one to secure men’s right to self-determination. Was not true for African slaves, this details the hypocrisy to which revolutions fall under. To which scrutiny of principle is rampant.

The paragraph that can be referred to as hypocrisy is such

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

This statement was disregarded for many years in the slavery debate, but I am not here to use my modern arbitrary sense of morality and ethics on this issue because as much as people like to think, it doth change nothing in the grand scheme of life. However, I’d like to point out something greater and back to my central point. To which the revolution change things for the majority and doth it change anything at all? It returns to the same point of major principle.

In, finality we can see many similarities between the two revolutions, an interesting one was that they were both hypocritical in a war. The French set out to have more power to people but were willing to give it up for a kinder emperor. The American revolution set out for freedom for all but were willing to compromise on the backs of African Americans. They are different in the fact that they were fighting for American home rule and alternative French home rule. So whilst it is evident that revolutions bring into effect a more kind system, it does also bring into effect systems of corruption and inefficiency. And to which we must ask ourselves. The revolution brings one king to another. The kings of the world were literal kings with subjects. And modern kings are those who are willing to influence the system through monetary gain, and whilst I do not want to disparage the revolutions of old, it is to be said that revolution as a whole is, in fact, a revolution a circular object that replaces the object but, indeed will end up practically in the same place. These gradual changes doth create a better world, but not a completely different world.


Notes: (because adding these in brackets made my eyes kill themselves due to the lack of              A E S T H E T I C)

  1. The Seven Years war was a world war consisting of the Prussians, British, Portuguese and more (most interesting the Iroquois confederacy a native American tribe) against the Holy Roman Empire, French, Russians, Swedish, Spanish and Mughals. Which was the challenging of Hapsburg aggression in Europe, Fredrick the Great claimed the throne on the premise of primogeniture (But in reality he just wanted to take but his core provinces) this war ended in France losing its colonies in the Americas. And the crippling of the French economy.

2. The first estate being that of the divine righteousness (Kings, princes and so fourth) the second estate being that of the clergy and papal officials, and the third state being the plebeians and middle class.

3. Marie Antoinette was speculated to of been hoarding grain in Versailles. They were marched to Paris by angry revolutionaries.

4. This did not begin this way, however. They just wanted colonial representation if they were being taxed so ludicrously for imported goods.