Prompt: Did World War II become more brutal as time went on? In what ways? Was the brutality on only one side?

Following Operation Barbarossa Hitler began implementing mass shootings of innocent minorities. Jews, Romani peoples, Slavs, and handicapped people of all sorts were made to dig their own graves and then be shot down into them. A reprisal shooting program was started to discourage harm against soldiers. Any time a German soldier was hurt or killed they would murder twenty to forty unrelated people. In 1939 the T4 program was created, its purpose being to eradicate everyone suffering from congenital diseases. They would take people from their homes offering medical assistance, then quietly murder them and tell their families they died naturally. The soldiers made into executioners began to feel an understandably burdensome mental tole, so the Nazi solution was to create a much more efficient and much less human mass murder method. They needed a way of killing deprived of all empathy, a way to slaughter hundreds like cattle without having to get a soldiers conscience bloody. In 1941 under SS Lieutenant Reinhardt Heydrich gas chambers were technologically perfected, swift and efficient chambers of death made to kill as many people as possible. People were worked to the point of death, then rounded up together and gassed. This was only the beginning of WWII’s brutality, and sweet lord I hate writing about this. But I have to so lets continue.

The Nazi’s were infamously brutal in their attempts to ethically cleanse their lands, but the British and Americans could be pretty inhuman as well. The major example of this were the bombings and air raids that were sent across Europe. In a twisted form of revenge for their fallen all sides began bombing their adversaries cities. The sole purpose of this was to murder and destroy uninvolved civilians. In this cacophony of chaos hell itself seemed to rise up as literal tornados of fire and debris ripped across the towns and villages. In 1945 thousands of people fled from the Soviets and were attacked by Britains Royal Air Force. They strategically dropped three waves of bombs upon the defenseless people, adamant about creating as much bloodshed as possible. Then they waited for rescue teams to arrive, and bombed them all again. Then the bastards waited AGAIN for rescue teams to arrive and bombed them once more. This horrendous bombing method resulted in 40,000 civilians, rescue workers, and Russian refugees dead on the streets.

Speaking of the Russian refugees I should make clear what exactly it was they were running from. If you thought the Nazi’s could act inhumanly psychopathic you don’t know much about what the Russians under Stalin were like. At least the Nazi’s murder methods were semi quick, guns and gas that sort of thing. The Soviets methods were a lot more.. whats the word… demonic in nature. Torture of innocents was not only encouraged, but rewarded with military advancement. The masses of Polish soldiers shot in the Katyn Forest got off easy compared to the “liberation” going on across Eastern Europe. Torture, rape, and murder of people between the ages of infancy to elderly became the norm. Pillaging innocents, stealing their homes and families, and murdering them in front of their loved ones with horrendously creative torture methods became the way for a Soviet officer to gain military honor and status. This meant those that rose to the top of the Soviet military were the most sadistic and bloodthirsty men around. Death became the goal, torture became the tool, and the grim reaper became the angel who could end your worldly suffering.

So in conclusion of this horrible topic around 80,000,000 people died during World War II, and no one besides the dead could hold the title of innocent. Nazi’s became the most infamous because of their death camps, murdering hundred of thousands of Jews, Romani, homosexuals, disabled people, congenitally diseased people, autistic people, Slavs, rival soldiers, and of course any and all German civilians standing up against the meaningless bloodshed. British and American troops acted sociopathically brutal as well, bombing thousands of innocent civilians in a vague and disgusting attempt at revenge. But in my mind the Soviets were the most unforgivable, as it seemed they hardly had any real motive behind their torture. They started out fighting for communism, but by the end they seemed to just enjoy the mindless violence. Strategy fell in importance to the Soviets as bloodlust clouded their minds, and their brutality was truly unrivaled. War is an immensely horrible thing, it can make almost anyone forget the value of a human life. WWII is a bloody example of that, displaying that even those fighting for justice can become enveloped by hatred and vengeance.

If you’ve read this far I commend you, this has certainly been the most difficult essay for me to write in quite awhile. Three and a half hours of sitting down and researching the details of the most destructive and murderous point in our history, not an afternoon delight by any means. I’d like to conclude this massive event of hopelessness with a heartfelt piece of hope. Each human life is extremely precious, each human life holds a spark of the holy creator, each human spirit should be regarded as miraculous and each individual should be given a chance to find happiness. War blinds us to this, it makes us forget that we are all part of a human collective and propels us to destroy the very essence of our own existence. I hope, God I hope, that these tragedies don’t repeat themselves and that we can be wise enough to learn from the past. For the sake of innocent life I pray that we can become better than this, and I pray that the souls that were unjustly ripped from their bodies can find peace in the beyond. Godspeed children of the light, may we create something better than this.

Question 1: What is the idea of a living constitution? In what way could it be argued that the American Revolution was a war against the living constitution.

A living constitution it a version of a constitution passed down verbally. The British had a living constitution in the form of parliament. The expectation of a living constitution is that its allowed to change with the times, parliament could discuss and evaluate current events of the time and change their regulations accordingly. The issue with a living constitution is that corruption is drawn to it. Since there is no firm written base backing up parliaments decisions anyone looking to produce their own agenda could wriggle up into parliament and bias the national laws and restrictions. This is what the Americans were fighting to change, they wanted a written constitution that couldn’t be simply changed on a whim. They wanted a document stating clearly the unalienable rights of each US citizen, and they wanted to make sure no one could come along in the future and change these rights to support their own biased agenda.

Question 2: What is nullification? Discuss one example from US history in which the state or group of states acted in the spirit of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

The states came first, and from them the central government was born. By this logic the states maintain control over the central government, and the states have the rights to stand up against the central government if they act unconstitutionally. Nullification is basically a state refusing to comply with the central government. If the government begins to act biased or begins implementing laws that favor their own agendas the states have the right to flat out refuse their regulations. The states have the right to label them as null and void, hence the term nullification. Virginia and Kentucky did just this, the government was interpreting the constitution in their own favor and these two states fought back and refused to comply. Another example of states declaring a federal decision to be null and void is the Tariff of 1828, nicknamed the “tariff of abominations” by southerners. Items produced domestically in the US needed to be financially protected, they needed laws in place in case the British attempted to artificially lower or raise their prices. Some protection was put in place, but New Englanders pressed congress to raise the protection measures even higher. Westerners on the other hand wanted an increase of materials, so the federal government had to choose who to accommodate. They chose the west, increasing shipments while also increasing the duties required to import certain raw materials. But while the west was accommodated the New Englanders as well as the South were less than pleased. The British began making threats to seek out other markets, and this made the Southern cotton producers very alarmed. South Carolina called for the teriff of 1828 to be pronounced null and void, and in 1833 another teriff was created as compensation calling for the gradual reduction of production rates.

 

Question 1: Describe the models of society laid out by Althusius and Hobbes.

Althusius’s model of society is called a fedorative polity. Instead of imagining society as a flat plain of civilians with an omniscient ruling class above them, Althusius described society as a richly textured enormously vast circuit of information and individuals. The first organization of power within the society is the family, then several families combine and create a village, from there the villages combine to create provinces, and finally the provinces go on to create a kingdom or a state. In essence a society is based upon many different individuals grouping together to collectively strengthen themselves, these individuals then work and live harmoniously together. The purpose of grouping together is to gain enough power to fend off invaders and ultimately gain themselves freedom. The king or the governments role is strictly to protect these freedoms, nothing more. The government is meant to be representation of the individual, its created to fairly deal with other countries and maintain peace and proper commerce between the two. The government is not created to boss around the individuals or demean their freedoms, its a civil servant made strictly to aid the individuals freedom. The fedorative polity is a collection of many different civil authorities who combine their authority together to further help protect their own freedoms. This should be seen as basic for a free society.

By contrast the view of Hobbes is a central government having control over everything, the towns and provinces don’t have any real power to defend themselves against this central government. This (sadly in my opinion) is how the majority of societies establish themselves nowadays. The central government is viewed as unbiased and omniscient, when in reality it’s simply as human as the rest of us. It has its own biases, points of view, agendas and personal goals, and because its given all the civil power its extremely easy for this central government to become corrupt.

Let me give you an example of this corruption from recent history. Originally Europe was composed of many different small societies and civil authorities. It was a vast collection of characters and culture, a patchwork quilt of cultural self expression and individual civil authority. Then over time these civil authorities began blending together and allowing their power to transfer to a broader central government. Now let me ask a question that will highlight my point. Would it have been better for the 20th century European if Germany had stayed a collection of small individual city states instead of combining into a powerful totalitarian nation? The answer is obvious. We would have been spared an enormous amount of grief, wartime, individual suffering and cultural extermination. Nazi Germany is an example of what can happen if a central government becomes corrupt, it can result in horrors the likes of which the world has never seen.

Just because the Hobbesian theory of central government makes it faster to pass laws and control the masses doesn’t mean its the best option for the masses. I argue the Althusius model for society not only better secures our individual freedoms, but it more accurately represents what the average citizen wants. I hate that i’m forced to describe us all as “the masses”. Its like we’ve been labeled as cattle, our individual dreams and culture nearly all forgotten. We’ve completely lost our individual representation, unless you count one government agent representing over 713,000 people as proper representation. In the medieval time period questioning the kings decisions was seen as not only normal, but extremely respectable. You were seen as an intelligent visionary if you could make a proper argument against the kings rulings. As much as Game of Thrones wants to argue otherwise, the historically accurate king was put in power to SERVE THE PEOPLE. Nothing more. The kings that denied this were quickly overthrown.

What is sad is that in today’s society questioning the power of the central government is viewed as civil disobedience, it can even be viewed as civil terrorism by those truly consumed by the group mentality. In my mind this is as close to playing god as we can get as a society, we’ve started looking at the government as an all knowing force that we cant possibly understand instead of a group of people elected to represent the people. If we don’t stand up and speak against this the central government will only continue to grow. It will grow until you can’t speak against it, it will grow until those not satisfied with being part of “the masses” will be quietly done away with. If we don’t want George Orwell’s 1984 to come to fruition we must be able to see the signs of it encroaching.

Question 2: Can smaller political units contribute to the cause of liberty? If so, why?

Our country was founded upon many different small political units. The liberty we won from the British was won by many small political units fighting against one giant central government. This is why in our constitution the United States are never referred to as “is”. The United States are referred to as “are” because we are a collection of individual political groups. We are a collection of states, each meant to have its own power and rights. We are a collection of political units, not simply a blob controlled by central government. The Nationalist Theory argues against this, stating the central government maintains complete control over every part of our country.

The Compact Theory on the other hand argues that it was the states that created the central government, it was the individual states that assigned power to the central government. The creator should always have power over the creation, not the other way around. But it seems the central government has gotten it into its mind that it was the original creator, and that the states are simply under its thumb. This is absolutely ridiculous, and honestly quite frightening. The creation rising up against its creator and enslaving them, makes me imagine a world where a cartoon murders its animator. I’ll use another example. A bride and groom meet and decide to get married. Was the marriage a product of the bride and groom? Or were the bride and groom a product of the marriage. The answer should be obvious, now assign the example in terms of central government and you’ll realize how backwards our current system is. The marriage is acting like it created the bride and groom, when in reality without the bride and groom the marriage wouldn’t exist.

There is a clear parallel between the Compact Theory and Althusius: an organization of small political units creating their own laws and regulations to maintain their freedom. There is also a clear parallel between the Nationalist Theory and Hobbes: a federal government having all the power in the world with the individuals having little to no power whatsoever to represent themselves. Unless, again being assigned the title of “the masses” feels like proper individual representation to you. In the early 1790’s the US’s first congress of representatives had one representative for every 30,000 people. Seems like a lot of people for one person to properly represent doesn’t it? Well today there’s one representative for every 713,000 people, an overwhelming number that clearly establishes that we truly have lost our personal representation. Sure, you have the power of your vote. But a drop in an ocean isn’t likely to do as much as you hope.

The fundamental question that is “Has our federal government gotten too large?” has become taboo to even speak about. Its a very reasonable question, but those who ask it are labeled civil terrorists. This amount of defensiveness just goes to show that we are on the right track, it just goes to show that this is a topic worth talking about. I don’t know about you, but I believe that personal representation is one of the bases our country was built upon. I also believe it has been swept beneath the rug, guarded by a dragon who will bite you if you so much as question what its hiding. Individual representation for every soul who resides in this country needs to be fought for. It needs to come to light how important it is, and it needs to stop being seen as taboo. The creation has enslaved its creator, and the creator has forgotten how to fight back. We need to remember how this country was built, that being on the backs of individuals fighting for and with their lives. These individuals died for our rights of freedom, and their sacrifice has nearly been forgotten. We must remember what they were fighting for, and take a real good look at how it has translated into our modern society.

World War II began in 1939 with Germany’s invasion of Poland. After they finished their attack in eastern Europe the Germans moved west, taking control of Belgium, a northern part of France, Denmark, Norway and choice pieces of Czechoslovakia and Lithuania. The Italians got involved not long after, attacking France in 1940 and taking a slice of their territory. Meanwhile Germany and Britain were locked in fierce combat, with Germany violating the Versailles treaty by using air force combat and bombing against the Brits. Operation Barbarossa (Germany’s attempt to invade the Soviets) was launched after a Non Aggression pact had been created between the soviets and the Japanese. But Germany underestimated the harshness of a Russian winter, and their invasion plan failed.

In the US tensions between the Americans and Japanese had caused President Roosevelt to cut off any and all trading ties between the two countries. To add insult to injury Roosevelt stuck his pacific fleet in the middle of pearl harbor, an obvious sign of political aggression. On December 7th this tactic resulted in the infamous bombing of pearl harbor, a Japanese air strike against the US. Roosevelt declared war against Japan, but he wasn’t in a place to declare war against Germany. It turns out he wouldn’t have to, as four days later on December 11th Hitler declared war against America. From there nearly every global superpower got involved with the war, as Hitlers ruthlessness and power hunger was too much for the countries of the world to ignore.

Question 1: What problems do price controls cause, and what are the benefits of letting prices adjust without government interference?

The obvious economic issue that arises from forced price controls are production shortages. When price is legally forced down people that would otherwise not buy a product flock to it. It sells like hotcakes, but the producer only makes half of his usual salary. Hes unable to keep up with the demand for his product, and hes not making enough money to upgrade any of his equipment. So there are shortages. The benefits of letting prices adjust naturally create just the opposite, the economy flourishes because prices are aloud to be truthful with consumers. If the producer isn’t making enough to keep up with demand he raises his prices and is once again back on track. Since hes now raised his prices hes able to afford upgrades, and his ability to produce quickly intensifies. Once hes upgraded his equipment he can lower prices again, and now there’s twice as much being produced for a lower price. In times of normal economics (times when there aren’t any natural disasters, urgent wars, ect.) prices need to be aloud to grow and evolve naturally. Trying to evolve the economy by merely passing a law is going to have the opposite result that the government agent intended.

Question 2: What is the origin of money?

Originally we partook in commerce through barter, for example I might trade some wheat for some wool or something of the like. But using this method can sometimes get complicated, if you’re trying to trade a shirt for a hat you have to find someone who wants to make that specific of a trade. The specificality associated with this commerce method eventually wore people down and they began searching for a material that can be seen as universally valuable. We settled with gold, since it has value both in its appearance and ability to be crafted into different valuable things. But carrying around chunks of gold is pretty inconvenient

Prompt: How important has the theme of optimism been in the development of western literature since 1493?

To get a full perspective of literature I like to look to the life and environment the author resided within. It shouldn’t be a shock to many that everyday life for the people of the past was full of many discomforts and heartaches: plagues, government funded torture, mass paranoia, unstoppable natural disasters, murderous raiders, religious extermination, forced slavery, and undeveloped medical technology to name a few. Because of these many horrifying realities humanity needed somewhere they could look to find the hope and community driven warmth they desired, so much like today’s society many of them looked to religion.

1400s

Before the literature of Luther and Foxe arrived to break down the pre-established laws of the catholic church, the catholic church was many peoples source of optimism. The fear of the unknown abyss of death put a universally difficult toll on peoples shoulders, so to compensate humans have always been fond at speculating a pleasurable alternative to the bleak presumption of the spiritless void. “Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfilment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness.”  In other words its a lot easier to imagine your plague smitten relatives sharing a cold one with Jesus up in the clouds, at least while you’re watching their 14th century corpse burn in the communities plague pit. Introducing the catholic church, a one stop shop for all your spiritual comforts. That is assuming you’re not a herbal medicine woman or a 14th century gay man, for both of these could have won you the label of possessed and consequently gotten you a trip to your own personal hanging tree. Starting to see the psychological importance of optimism?

1500s

As the catholic church developed and pulled in more followers than a modern day superbowl, the pope began to think of ways his followers could assist him in the financial aspect. There was a fair amount of tithing and donations already, but the pope had become fond of this particular money stash and would rather think of an alternative way to fund the building of St Peters Chapel. Introducing indulgences! Don’t wanna be punished for thine sins? Throw us a dime and let the good times begin! Got a sneaky secret you’re too embarrassed to admit? Why, just pay us money and God shall forget. Indulgences were a way for priests to get around emptying their personal pocketbooks, and they doubled as a way to lesson the religious guilt pumped on the public at the time. Some folks were into it, some against, but no one was willing to go against the popes wishes and risk losing a vital organ or two.

No one that is, except a sly theology expert/monk known to the world as Martin Luther. Martin Luther viewed indulgences as a total fraud, a sinful lie promising the removal of sins. His belief was that people were being tricked into damning themselves, that the pope and his army of avarice were milking the followers dry while simultaneously dragging them towards the hellfire. Luther, as you’d probably guess, was not enthused about the idea. But he was smart, and he knew that questioning the pope was enough to be prosecuted for blasphemy. So, he became the expert of backhanded compliments, managing to praise the pope while at the same time critically pointing out the faults of roman catholic church. His magnum opus took form in his 95 Theses, a list of questions and propositions meant to spark large scale debate about the catholic church and their indulgences. This was purely passion based, as to Luther the exposure of the underbelly of indulgences was the only way to save people from an eternity in hell. Indulgences were meant to bring optimism (as well as a few extra coins), but Luther turned the idea on its head and sparked a wave of religious revolution across Europe.

Thomas More was also a 15th century writer, but he specialized in economy and government structure rather than religion. His work Utopia tells of a traveler named Rafael. Rafael had traveled the world, and had seen a fictional society which he calls utopia. In this utopia private property, recreational drinking and gambling, and money have all been completely abolished. If someone needs something they go into town and receive it, no payment needed. The government manages the economy and everything that goes into the production and distribution, and people can act much more efficiently because they aren’t able to make financial blunders. This society Rafael describes is the product of pure optimism, which More explains is not realistic. More states that the absence of capitalistic competitivity will create sloth, as people will become too dependent on the government and look for any excuse to get out of doing the work themselves. If everyone receives the same, there’s no draw to work harder. This is an example of how a purely communistic society is overly optimistic. It expects the greed and sloth that exist in everyone to simply disappear with the push of a button, and doesn’t give any solution for the realistic issues that would arise from economical equality. Sometimes being too optimistic can lead to societies downfall.

Lets take the outcomes of becoming overly optimistic and apply them to a spiritual sense. Christopher Marlowe’s play Doctor Faustus does just this. Doctor Faustus was a man who was raised as a christian, but he rebelled against his upbringing and called on the Devil to discuss a contract. A demon named Mephistopheles told the man that if he sold his soul he would live 24 years of pure pleasure, not having to worry about money or work and receiving any and all he desired. The demon filled him with over optimism, promising hell was not as bad as the christian faith said. He fed on Faustus’s greed and sloth, petting his ego and applying optimism to what would otherwise be fear. Faustus agreed and sold his soul, but although he had all the wine and wealth he could ever want he was utterly consumed by fear. By relying on false optimism he had damned himself, and holding the demons words higher than he had held his previous faith had completely destroyed any chance he had at salvation. On the night before his demise Faustus called all of his friends for dinner and told them the horrible news. They told him to plea for mercy the whole night through, and if he was lucky God would have pity on him. But when he sat down to pray he found he was too far gone. He had already committed true blasphemy and promised himself to Satan, there was no going back. His body parts were found littered around his wealthy estate the next morning.

1600s

Shakespeare’s Macbeth is a story about a nobleman who is given a prophecy by three witches. This prophecy states Macbeth shall become king, and his companion Banquo shall father the next line of kings. Macbeth sends a letter of this news to his wife, who convinces him this is proof that his destiny is to kill the current king and take his throne. With some persuasion Macbeth agrees and does away with the current king. Macbeth becomes king, but the paranoia that a cousin or sibling may murder him for the throne is constantly at the back of his mind. During Macbeth’s inauguration Macbeth notices that Macduff, the Thane of Fife, has not attended. Macbeth’s suspicion (combined with his lingering envy over Macduff’s ability to spawn offspring) drives Macbeth to send an assassin to murder Macduff’s wife and children. Macbeth is also worried that Banquo’s son will fulfill the prophecy and replace him, so he murders Banquo and attempts to also murder his son. Lady Macbeth begins to feel guilty to the point of sleep walking and sleep talking. She rubs her hands in her sleep, as if shes washing them. She says to herself no matter how hard she tries she cant seem to wash the blood off them. A doctor is called for her, but he says the only way she can cure her guilt is to be forgiven by God. After this Macduff takes stage, carrying Macbeth’s disembodied head. Macduff becomes the hero who slayed the barbarian, and Macbeth is known from then on as the barbarian who killed the previous king. The connection to optimism in all of this is optimism drove Macbeth to kill. He was honest and kindhearted prior to the prophecy, but once given a heavy dose of political optimism he became paranoid and power hungry. Believing your destiny is to murder the king and take his place is a form of optimism so overly thick that it blinds Macbeth to the ramifications of his actions. His optimism has stolen away his logic, and because of this his name was damned and he was remembered as a tyrant.

Moving from fiction to philosophy i’ll now speak a little about the works of Francis Bacon. Bacon was an English politician and writer, and although he had immense experience in the genres of his literature he rarely chose to bring up personal matters. He wrote Of Fortune and Of Expense, two works discussing financial prosper and decay. But the work I personally find the most philosophical wealth in is his work Of Envy. I’ve always been fascinated by human envy, both because of its ability to easily infiltrate a seemingly virtuous person as well as its ability to stick around and fester long after its welcomed. Envy is like an autoimmune disease, it arises from our internal instinctive longing to better ourselves and continuously causes us damage from the inside out. We feel desperate to improve ourselves, and this not only creates spite towards the advanced but also ironically drags us away from our goal in the process. It’s the emotional equivalent to cancer, it applies so much overcompensation to a damaged area that it further damages it. Like a dog chasing its own tail, when it finally catches what its been chasing it finds that its only biting its own being.

Bacon brings up several truths about envy that can further help us dissect the sin. The first is we hardly ever envy what is utterly unattainable. For example we wouldn’t envy celebrities, not for very long at least. They have climbed the social ladder far higher than the majority of us strive for, and since its such a distant fantasy most of us admire their accomplishes rather than envy them. Why waste spite on something unreachable? Our peers on the other hand are a prime breeding ground for envy, since they are often the people we compare ourselves to. Bacon says on the matter: “Near kinsfolks, and fellows in office, and those that have been bred together, are more apt to envy their equals when they are raised.” When a celebrity accomplishes a goal far away in an ivory tower we praise their workmanship. When a neighbor accomplishes a goal (a goal we longed to accomplish but failed to do so) we feel a bubbling river of spite rise up through the now envy soaked ground of our subconscious. Its a strange phenomenon to examine, the phenomenon of envy being linked with relative proximity. “Again, envy is ever joined with the comparing of a man’s self; and where there is no comparison, no envy; and therefore kings are not envied but by kings.”

Envy is very amicable when immersed with one or more other sins, it hardly ever shows up completely alone. Lust can easily trigger it; a comrade obtaining a love interest while you’re left alone can draw up envy like an artist draws up cartoons. Greed pairs with envy like a second cousin, both their bases are composed of unusually similar components. Craving something that isn’t yours, that is. Pride can make envy explosively aggravated, in fact excessive or unwarranted pride usually calls up both envy and wrath. These two sins often work as a team, fueling one another in their violent internal battles for undeserved compensation. Gluttony and sloth are the only two sins who aren’t generally paired with envy, mostly because these sins are focused on overindulgence while envy is the initial want for basic indulgence. The slipperiest part of envy is its ability to blind someone from their blessings. It can make one forget what they wanted in the first place, so even if they obtain it they still feel the need for more. Its as if envy wants to stay within us so badly that it creates a treadmill of desire for us to eternally  run on. We forget what we want as soon as we gain it, and our envy forces us to move our avarice on to the next desire. We run in circles, and our envy watches and laughs.

This is a good place to transition to our next topic: John Milton’s work Paradise Lost. In this Milton tells the story of an angel who was corrupted by jealousy. Gods most favorite angelic creation was the angel of light, if translated from Latin to English his name is Daystar. Though a more famous name linked to this angel is Lucifer. Lucifer was created to be God’s right hand man. He was made to protect, guide and enlighten all of God’s mortal creations. This also meant he got to watch God create, and he had to live with the knowledge he would never create as well as the knowledge that he would never rival humans as God’s favorite. In a moment of weakness Lucifer’s holy shield was pierced by a thorn of jealousy, both towards God and his humans. Lucifer wanted the power to create the universe as he saw fit, who says God should be the ultimate sovereign? He also didn’t see the point of God giving his energy to these puny humans, why should he serve that which is so far beneath him? Lucifer’s jealousy intensified, and he shared his spiteful opinions with his angel brethren. Those who chose to listen were also corrupted, and eventually Lucifer had created a large enough army to rebel against God. But obviously this didn’t work as smoothly as Luci had hoped, and sorrowfully God was forced to banish his favorite angel and his jealousy fueled army.

Now Lucifer was stuck on Earth, surrounded by the humans he viewed as lesser. Hatred of these puny blood bags bubbled up from deep within Lucifer, and his hatred slowly and painfully mixed with his now deep rooted jealousy. This cacophony of spite and disappointment climaxed into an unholy being of rage and sadism, a being known as envy. The differences between envy and jealousy are that while jealousy has a goal it wants to seize through spiteful methods, envy’s only goal is to exaggerate those spiteful methods. In other words envy exists only to create pain within those it envies, its sadism is its only reward. So you can imagine this new scenario of a deity fueled by envy of humans living among humans didn’t work out too swimmingly, and Lucifer was banished even farther down. He was banished deep within the earth, for if he couldn’t live peacefully on the surface he could suffer alone in the boiling magma of the earths core. Well, he wasn’t entirely alone. He had his army of corrupted angels by his side, who over time were so exposed to hatred and suffering they transformed into demons. These demons managed to slither up through the cracks in the earth, and became Lucifer’s only connection to the above ground world. Lucifer vowed that if he couldn’t rule the universe and the mortals that reside within, he would instead drag as many of them down with him as possible. To this day the battle of light vs dark rages on, and the demon envy continues its immortal cycle of smooth tongued seduction and sadism. This is an example of what happens when optimism is consumed by negativity. Lucifer’s light was eaten away by sin, and he became trapped within his own hatred.

1700’s

Daniel Defoe’s fictional autobiography The Life and Adventures of Robinson Crusoe tells the story of what can happen when ones optimism blinds them from reality. The title character Robinson Crueso craves to leave his home and set sail on the hunt for adventure. His family and friends are understandably against this, the danger is immense and they’re worried for his survival. But Crueso’s optimism manages to speak louder than his family, and he boards a ship. That evening an enormous storm approaches which threatens to tear his ship apart; Crueso prays to the universe that if he survives he will head straight home. The storm clears, and Crueso forgets the severity of his promise. Once again he is blinded by optimism, playing the storm off as just a coincidence. He refuses to return home, and that night an even larger storm arrives which manages to completely destroy his ship. By some miracle Crueso survives and is washed back onto shore. You’d think having your ship torn apart by a storm would disencourage anyone, but once again Crusoe’s optimism sways his better judgment and he returns to the sea. A mixed variety of misadventures occur because of Crusoe’s choice to set sail, but they end with him becoming shipwrecked alone on a deserted island. In this story optimism can be viewed from a different perspective. Optimism is what pulled Crueso away from his home and his family, and optimism is what eventually led to his isolation away from the rest of society. It just goes to show that as much as the human race needs optimism, it can’t allow itself to become blinded by it.

1800’s

The last author I want to write about is the rather famous Hans Christian Anderson. His stories have been read, beloved, and adapted into theater and film throughout the decades. Although his original stories tend to be a lot more dark than their film counterparts (for example no mermaids turn to seafoam in the Disney adaptation), Anderson’s work still carry enough optimism and positive themes for children to get immersed. One of Anderson’s tales is The Princess and the Pea, which contains some questionable but still very optimistic values. This story tells of a prince who is seeking a princess to marry, so he goes on a journey around the world to find a suitable one. But every woman he meets he finds something wrong with, and he eventually returns home disheartened. One dark and stormy night the king hears a knock on the door, and he opens it to find a beautiful young woman who claims to be a princess. This is where the story starts jumping the shark for me, for its never explained what this princess is doing wandering around at night through the rain. Nevertheless the woman is invited inside, and the queen wants to test if the girl is telling the truth. So she does what any reasonable person would do: she stacks up twenty mattresses, puts a hardened pea beneath them, and gives this bed to the maiden to sleep in for the night. The next morning when asked how she slept the girl confesses that she slept very badly. She says she is black and blue, the pea being so uncomfortable that she became bruised. Because of this they conclude that she must be a princess, simply because of how sensitive she is. They prince marries her, and they live happily ever after.

Like most fairy tales this story has several leaps of logic within it, but nonetheless it’s still filled to the brim with optimism. Firstly being the girl just showing up at their door. This prince has just spent the last few months traveling and meeting all the neighboring princesses, but somehow this princess they don’t know just shows up at their door wanting shelter. That’s unrealistically optimistic. Secondly the queens brilliant plan to uncover this chicks ruse is to test how physically sensitive she is, and it actually ends up working! So I guess if ones ruling qualifications are based on the amount of bruises wracked up from sleeping upon a dried up seed this story is very accurate. Election who? We use dried peas to decide our countries political representation. I’m clearly joking. Anyway, despite the leaps in logic this story has become a household tale. Most children grow up reading it, I certainly did. Because of its popularity the unrealistic optimism it contains has soaked into our culture. Wishing upon stars has become the norm, and most everyone wishes their prince or princess will just show up at their door. Its debatable whether this message is helpful or harmful to humanities majority, but there is no debating that it has certainly left its optimistic mark.

Another of Anderson’s stories is the tale of Thumbelina. In this work a woman desperately wishes for a child, so like anyone would she makes her way over to the neighborhood faery. This fae sells her a barleycorn seed, which she is instructed to plant. She does as shes told, and a flower grows from the seed. Within this flower is a tiny maiden, no bigger than the woman’s thumb. She is named Thumbelina, and she and the woman become very close friends. But one night while the woman is sleeping a mother toad spies Thumbelina through the window, and she captures her so that Thumbelina can marry the toads son. Thumbelina weeps when she hears her fate, and her cries are overheard by some friendly fishes. The fishes help her escape, but winter soon hits and Thumbelina is still lost within the freezing woods. She meets a kindly old mouse who offers her shelter through the winter, and deep within the tunnels of the mouses home she discovers a bird. The bird is on the brink of death, but Thumbelina nurses it back to health and sets it free into the world. The mouses neighbor is a mole who often visits to tell stories, and he falls in love with Thumbelina and asks the mouses permission to marry her. The mouse agrees, but Thumbelina is less than pleased to be married off. You see the mole lives underground. He hates the sunlight and flowers of the above ground world, and these are things Thumbelina can’t live without. So on their wedding day Thumbelina goes above ground to weep, wanting to see the sunlight one last time. Out of the sky flies the bird she rescued, and he offers to fly her away to the warm country. She agrees, and when they arrive Thumbelina is introduced to the king of the faeries. They fall in love, he gifts her a pair of wings, and together they live happily ever after.

A reoccurring theme in many of Anderson’s stories is the concept of happily ever after. In our society this has become a household concept, especially for children. Children grow up believing in happily ever afters, they grow up believing that if you push through the hardship one day you will find yourself in a situation with no troubles whatsoever. You will find a happy end, and your story will be over. In a strange way I can link this to peoples belief in heaven. If you work hard enough and maintain good morality one day after you pass on you will be rewarded with your own happily ever after. The end is an extremely difficult concept for people to think about, and so through the centuries many have built up their optimism specifically around their version of “happily ever after”. Whether its in a religious sense of your soul eventually joining with the heavenly creator, or in a nihilistic sense of exiting out of existence completely. Both of these, in their own ways, are versions of the concept of happily ever after. They are ways for people to not feel so inescapably helpless in this crazy game of life. Throughout the centuries humans have always had to go through suffering, and we’ve always had to deal the existence of death. We are one of the only animals who live their entire lives knowing that one day, undeniably, we will die. That is why optimism has been so urgently needed in the development of western culture, its our only mental rope that holds us back from existential devastation. Its why we’ve created religion, why we’ve created morals, why we’ve collectively kept pushing forward through the pain of life. Because one day we hope, in the deepest caverns of our hearts we hope, that the pain will subside and we will find spiritual bliss. That is how important the theme of optimism has been in the development of western literature, its the very backbone of our collective will to keep trying. If we had no optimism, many of us would simply give up. We keep trying because one day we hope to receive our own happily ever after.

But the way I see it is that there is no end, there is no final spiritual bliss. This life we are living, right now, can be like heaven if we make it so. We have the here and now, we have this earth and we have each other. We don’t have to sit and hope for things to get better once we are dead, we can take a stand and make things better for those who are still alive. If each of us use our optimism to improve the present, rather than just wait for the future to provide us with our own “happily ever after”, I believe that we can create a world that no one feels the need to escape from. We can create a world where there is no need for hopeful optimism, because we’ve already reached nirvana. We have the power to make this planet we share a living heaven, we have the power to create our own paradise. We need to stop looking to the future as a cure all for our problems, and start solving those problems now so by the time we reach the future we’ll have set ourselves up for true happiness. You don’t need to rely on optimism, you can be the change you want to see in the world. Heavens waiting right outside, just reach out and take it.

Question 1: What is the Washington Monument Syndrome?

The Washington Monument Syndrome refers to the time in our history when the government closed the Washington Monument in order to manipulate budget cuts. When faced with budget cuts the government was expected to shut down something small, perhaps firing a few unnecessary bureaucrats. Unwilling to cooperate with this plan the government instead shut down one of our countries most visited monuments. Their reasoning for this was the tourists waiting to see the monument would throw a big enough fit that they would reverse the budget cuts, which indeed happened. Instead of trying to understand why the budget was cut in the first place and using this information to improve the system the government instead decided to use the public as a manipulation technique. They simply shut down something popular and let the outraged civilians do their job for them. The budget was restored the lazy way, and the initial issue that started the budget cuts to begin with was never examined or improved upon.

Question 2:  In practice, what have been some of the outcomes — intended or unintended — of anti-poverty programs?

The anti poverty programs aim to financially assist the lower class and raise their standards of living. What these programs don’t take into account though are the reasons behind the poverty. The reasons (at least in a capitalistic society) are generally a lack of contribution towards the economy. The person either refuses to work or their product is not well received by the public, either of these issues can result in poverty. The government then takes notice of these poverty stricken and decides to financially compensate them. How you may ask? Simple, tax those who have built a financially successful business. So basically the government redistributes wealth from those contributing to the economy and gives it to those who have failed to contribute. The people who make good business decisions get punished, and the people who have made bad decisions get rewarded. From 1967 to 1995 the anti poverty programs have grown tremendously in their spending, but the poverty rates have stayed about the same. Any economist can easily see why, those suffering from poverty are not investing their wealth wisely. They made bad business decisions which resulted in their poverty, and now they receive government aid to continue making bad business decisions. Meanwhile the business owners making good decisions have less funds to work with, because the funds they rightly earned have been redistributed to those less capable of making good economical decisions. Furthermore the poverty stricken now have no reason whatsoever to build a decent business for themselves, because the government is already paying them to sit on their laurels and slack off. The economies overall wealth decreases for no good reason, and the poor stay poor. The only way to truly end poverty is through competition, if someone has to work to stay alive they will work. But if they get paid just for existing they have no reason to pull themselves above the poverty line, they will happily stay poor and get paid for it. Although it is compassionate to imagine a cure-all for poverty the reality is people will only work hard if they have to, and working hard and/or investing wisely is the only way to truly pull yourself out of poverty.

Prompt: What is one of Kipling’s copybook headings that applies to recent public opinion.

Kipling’s poem The Gods of the Copybook Headings is from the point of view of a seemingly immortal narrator. He says that through every incarnation he watches, and he sees that the Gods of the Marketplace (dishonest or selfish public opinion) are weak and fleeting. The Gods of the Copybook Headings (age old wisdom’s that were printed upon students textbooks throughout the 19th century) by contrast never seem to weaken. “We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn, that water would certainly wet us, as fire would certainly burn; But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind, So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.” Humans are creatures of convenience, and as we evolve we tend to choose the belief that personally benefits us most. We ignore the impersonal offerings of wisdom and truth, finding them “lacking in uplift, vision and breadth of mind”, and often prefer the unrealistic and idealistic fantasies of societal inter-meshing. “We moved as the spirits listed. They never altered their pace, Being neither cloud nor wind-born like the Gods of the Marketplace.” We resist the more strenuous, yet ultimately more beneficial path to pursue the “cloud or wind-born” easy and commonly fashionable way instead. But the hard truth never alters its pace, and we are simply running on a never-ending philosophical treadmill, ultimately making the process more difficult on ourselves than if we just bit the bullet and accepted the Gods of the Copybook Headings. “With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch, They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch; They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings; So we worshiped the Gods of the Market Who promised such beautiful things.” We yearn for knowledge, wishing for the secrets of the universe. This desperation leads to us to deny any and all fantasy to pursue the most newly discovered marketplace science. We forget the magic of old, and give ourselves over to the scientific trends of the present.

“When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised Perpetual peace. They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease. But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: Stick to the Devil you know.” This passage is as applicable to recent public opinion as it is realistically disturbing. Everyone wants peace, but there is no one mystical being with the intellect necessary to deliver us this peace. We grasp for straws, looking for anyone else who can more adequately solve our problems for us. As modern history has shown us, strict gun control has become a trendy way of delivering “peace”. Limiting everyone from bearing arms in theory stops any and all gun violence. The problem with this is: if someone wants something, its very difficult to stop the market from delivering. This creates the scenario where a violent person finds a way to get a hold of a weapon, while the innocent casualties have no way whatsoever to defend themselves. We are disarmed, and delivered bound to our foes.

“On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised a fuller life (Which started by loving our neighbor and ended by loving his wife) Til our women had no more children and the men had lost reason and faith, and the Gods of the Copybook Heading said: The Wages of Sin is Death.” This passage gives a glance into what would happen if we were consumed by our own self interest. This “fuller life” seems to be one taken over by sin and forgotten by familiar instinct. Children stop being born, men forget kindness. We think only of our own pleasure, and the human race collectively meets with death.

“In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: If you don’t work you die.” This passage is an honest metaphor for our modern economical society. Whether in a capitalistic, socialistic, or even communistic society when one is taxed to pay for another’s well-being this slave mentality of “If you don’t work you die” becomes common place in the subconscious of the civilians.

“As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man, There are only four things that are certain since Social Progress began. That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, and the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the Fire; And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins, When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return.” I can’t express enough how much I admire this poem. It describes the mob mentality and evolutionary circles of mankind today just as well as it described people back in Kipling’s time. As we try to improve ourselves and our society, as we move forward into a “brave new world”, we mustn’t forget the age old wisdom of the past. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, and if we can’t learn the lessons from the suffering of the past we ourselves shall be doomed to endure that same suffering. We must protect ourselves and our families, we must protect our faith in helping ones neighbor and deter ourselves from the mindless pleasure of the flesh, we mustn’t expect anyone besides ourselves to pay for our worldly sins. Strict self responsibility, both for the individual and the collective organized government, is the only way to not repeat painful lessons of the past. We must move into the future equipped with the virtuous lessons of the past, this is the only way we can truly and permanently evolve our society.

Prompt: Considering information in the reading and lectures, what problems from WWI helped contribute to the outbreak of WWII?

After the Treaty of Versailles ended WWI Germany fell under strong economic hardship. Adolph Hitler, an army officer and military speaker at the time, was sent to the DAP (German Workers Party) to give speeches about the glory of nationalism. He was eventually made the leader of the DAP because of these well worded speeches, and in 1920 changed the name to NSDAP (National Socialist German Workers’ Party, or Nazi party for short). With the Nazi backing Hitler attempted to take over Germany by force, but he failed and was arrested. Once he was released from jail the economic depression in Germany was in full swing, and he used this to his advantage by creating a political campaign advertising nationalistic ideals. People were so desperate for the depression to let up that they were willing to overlook Hitlers more discriminatory tendencies (for example blaming Germany’s loss during WWI on Jews and other minorities), and consequently Hitler took power.

Meanwhile Japan was doing its best to invade China, and it was also attempting to expand its reach over the Pacific islands. This raised conflict, because at the time America was also trying to gain power over the islands. America was setting up its Pacific Defense Triangle, and to do this it needed power in the Philippines. Japan was also pushing for power in this area, and this lead to the two countries butting heads.

Fascism was spreading throughout much of Europe. Nazism continued gaining power in Germany, turning it into a near totalitarian country. Italy was also suffering heavy fascism under Mussolini, and Russia was full out nuts with totalitarianism violence and ethnic cleansing under Stalin. These factors, combined with America and Japan feuding over the Philippines, were the perfect storm to spark another world war. So basically, WWII was created by a joint force of mass murder under the hands of dictators, peace treaties that humiliated Germany and left them bitter and spiteful, and a universal gluttony for ever expanding territories at the cost of their rightful owners.

Question 1: Explain the basics of the Austrian theory of the business cycle. What is the difference, in terms of consequences, between lower interest rates that result from saving choices of individuals, and lower interest rates that are obtained artificially, by a government established central bank.

In a natural, undisturbed economy people deposit money into the central bank in order to save more for the future. This excess of funds allows banks to naturally lower their interest rates, which in turn convinces business firms to take out loans to fund their long term projects. Each bank wants the majority of business firms to come to them for loans, so they lower the interest rates more in order to compete. Now, since people are saving their present money they intend to spend it in the future. The business firms are also spending their loans on projects that will make them more productive in the future. In the mean time, people aren’t spending as much, which means the economy doesn’t need to produce as much. Since the economy doesn’t need to produce as much, the resources that were being used to make products can now be used by the business firms in building their long term projects.

People are saving money for the future, and business’s can obtain both the funds and materials necessary to produce more in the future. Everyone wins, that is until government tries to artificially lower interest rates. When the government tries this the whole system falls outta wack. The public is not saving more, which means they are consuming the same amount as always. They continue to consume, and the business’s have to use the resources to make products instead of use it to build their long term projects.

So through the artificially lowered interest rates the business’s are being mislead to start projects that they don’t have the resources necessary to complete. They waste their time and money, as well as waste many other peoples time and money by fighting for resources they have no way to obtain. The result of artificially lowered interest rates is economical conflict. Labor and physical resources become misallocated, and business’s are tricked into pushing forward projects that in the end will be financially and physically impossible to complete. This is why we’ve seen random drops in our economy throughout the years. It’s not simply because capitalism is flawed, as hypothesized by Marx. But rather the governments impatience and greed.