thinkStory thoughts

I think many things. And I want to share those things. So here we go.

[mondomoppo]

No is not enough: A message to family, friends and followers

I just finished Naomi Klein’s new book,“No is Not Enough” and I urge you to read it, and more importantly, act on it. We are at a critically dangerous point in our evolution as a country and as a species. You might ask: well, what are YOU going to do about it? Good question, and my answer may not be as good: I am an old man now with not much of future ahead of me, certainly not as much as you. As dire as the present situation is, I don’t stand to suffer as much as you and your kids. What I’m doing is reading, thinking, and writing screeds like this to people I know have good hearts and, good minds, and a broader range of options than I have. 

Klein’s thesis is that it’s not enough to resist, though we must do so. More importantly, we much come together and propose the utopia that the kindest, most intelligent, resourceful and bravest inhabitants of this planet can offer. It’s a big task, but the only positive option. 

You can slide under cover of the urgencies of your private and personal lives, your own hopelessness, or your fears on any number of fronts. Or you can do as the Standing Rock heroes did: you can join with others to not only oppose the epitome of selfishness represented by the present occupant of the presidency and his administration, or you can propose and support ideas for a better world that not only resists the spread of authoritarianism but offers a path for growth into that better world.

If you think you can’t afford the book, contact me and I’ll gift it to you in any form through Amazon: [email protected]

[thinkstorythots]

This book is on my reading list. Her “This Changes Everything” lived up to its title and changed my life.

[thinkstorythots]

Prophecy for Today

Prophets are seldom popular. They say what no one wants to hear. They challenge us to change in ways that haven’t occurred to us, that blow us out of our comfort zones, that force us to us make progress or perish.

To me, the most important prophets today are just doing their jobs. I’m speaking about climate scientists. Prophets of old had to speak in metaphor and allegory to get people to rethink their ways. Today, we don’t have to be metaphorical. We have science, and the science is clear. Physics, not mystery, makes the rules.

Climate is changing. The change will cause events that are way out of proportion to anything we humans have seen before. The exact nature of what’s coming is not predictable, but disruption is now inevitable. That’s physics.

In recent months as I’ve researched this as a lay person, the conclusions have made me squirm. I couldn’t find any reason to hope. It was as though the future has now been set in stone, and no matter what I did as an individual, things would only get worse.

This is the limitation of prophecy. It can warn, but it cannot predict. What we cannot know—what no prophet, scientist or otherwise, can predict—is how we as humans will respond. We always have a choice.

In my research, I finally stumbled upon a book that gave me another perspective—A Paradise Built in Hell by Rebecca Solnit. This book presents exhaustive studies Solnit did of a century’s worth of disasters, including San Francisco’s 1906 earthquake, the Blitz-Krieg of WWII, Mexico City’s 1985 earthquake, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina. From her work, Solnit discovered something amazing: In disaster, we are at our best. In every scenario, communities rose to the occasion naturally and took care of each other. The core human instinct in the most frightening moments is to become 100% present and to care for nothing except the wellbeing of those around you. It’s a very hopeful book from that point of view.

The trouble comes, apparently, when the status quo that existed before the disaster fears that its authority or advantages will be stripped away in the upheaval. That’s why we hear so much about looting and anarchy at those times, although that’s only the merest fraction of what actually happens. Alarm bells that “criminals are looting” when it’s much more likely that neighbors are simply helping each other survive is a symptom of something called “elite panic,” and it’s the immediate go-to for those in charge who want to keep their power. Listen for the signs of elite panic the next time something happens. It is not a real thing; it is manufactured to preserve the status quo.

What I think we need to do then, and here’s where I will myself be a bit of a prophet, is to do all we can before climate disruption to shift the status quo of our society as far as we can toward fairness. Solnit writes in her conclusion:

“Climate change is shaping up to be as unfair as disasters have ever been. … Surviving and maybe turning back the tide … will require more ability to improvise together, stronger societies, more confidence in each other. It will require a world in which we are each other’s wealth and have each other’s trust.”

She also says:

“Among the factors determining whether you will live or die are the health of your immediate community and the justness of your society.”

Naomi Klein gives us her prophecy in her recent work This Changes Everything:

“[I]n the hot and stormy future we have already made inevitable …, an unshakable belief in the equal rights of all people and a capacity for deep compassion will be the only things standing between civilization and barbarism.”

The prophets both scientific and sociological have brought me to this conclusion: The best thing I can do at this point to be an activist regarding climate change is to work ceaselessly for a more just and equitable society. The changes are coming; I’m going to spend my time doing all I can to level the playing field so that all people share equally in the effects—and in the promise that the opportunity to rebuild could mean.

I write this posting today in honor of all that we do as individuals and as a community to work toward a more just, compassionate world while we still can.  

[thinkstorythots]

(3 of 3) Are we reliving the fall of the Roman Republic?

Third in a three part series

Okay, one more. This one is close to my heart, since I’ve been researching and writing about Julius Caesar for the last ten years. How much is the time we’re living through now like Caesar’s? What should we be looking out for?

Most of the below facts about the late Republic are from memory, but a great resource is Adrian Goldsworthy’s Caesar: Life of a Colossus. Check it out if you want to know more.

So what are the key points?

Set up to the Roman Civil War

The Roman Republic was a constitutional oligarchy. In other words, it was ruled by a group of “optimates” or “best men.” The Roman Senate was made up of the heads of a small group of families, which was passed down through generations. Some men could be added to the Senate, “new men,” but most were part of a longstanding tradition.

These men held huge estates and could also be elected to additional offices with various levels of authority. They could be “proconsuls” (governors) of provinces, for example, and this position was quite lucrative for them personally.

As proconsul of Gaul, Caesar spent the nine years prior to the Civil War conquering the rest of Europe and bringing it under Roman sway. He made it all the way to “Londinium,” then only a small settlement.

He wanted to come home after his proconsulship and be allowed to run again for consul, one of the two primary magistrates that ran Rome. He had been consul once before—in fact, you had to have been consul before you could be proconsul.

This was part of the “Cursus Honorum,” the ladder of increasing responsibility that Roman magistrates could rise through. In effect, when the Republic was working at its best, the optimates pretty much took turns filling each of the positions. This ensured that knowledge and experience would be spread evenly among their ranks. Elections, held yearly in October, filled all the positions for the following year.

Generally, you had to be present in Rome in order to run for a new office. There were many checks and balances like this in the Roman system, to avoid the one thing they most hated: monarchy. There had been a king of Rome 500 years prior to this, but he had tried to be a despot, so he had been cut down and killed—interestingly, by an ancestor of the same Brutus who later assassinated Caesar.

Caesar asked that the requirement to be present in Rome be waived so he could stand for election before he got back to the city. Conservative members of the senate, most notably Cato, objected to this on supposedly principled grounds, but the real truth was that Cato hated Caesar and his progressive ways.

Cato stirred up resistance to Caesar in Rome by calling into question the legality of some of Caesar’s actions in his prior consulship. Cato threatened to have Caesar put on trial if he were to return.

Cato colluded with Pompey, who was also a proconsul but had left his province to park himself outside of Rome with a couple legions before Caesar got back.

Crossing the Rubicon

Caesar made his way with his ten legions of battle-hardened soldiers to the border of Italy—the Rubicon. It was illegal for him to cross it with an army. Ostensibly, he should have crossed it alone and given up his proconsulship to the next guy who would be holding that office.  

Much correspondence flew up and down the Italian peninsula between Caesar and his allies and the Senate making demands on Caesar. Caesar would counter with compromises, and the Senate (Cato) would insist instead on even more rigorous demands.

Finally the Senate issued the “Final Act.” This called for all Romans to rise up and fight Caesar on sight.

Looking at this from Caesar’s point of view, we can see that Caesar had increased the size of the Roman Republic many times over with his conquest of Europe. He had solidified and enriched the Republic to an extent that no other man ever had or even imagined doing. And now the Senate was turning on him? All he wanted was to come home.

He crossed the Rubicon and headed for Rome.  

The Civil War

When Caesar got to Rome, he found it deserted. Well, the citizenry was still there, and all the women, but Pompey, Cato, and most of the Senate and magistrates had fled. Their panic as his approach overmastered them. Not only that, they left the entire Treasury there for Caesar to help himself to. Caesar also had boatloads of his own money that he’d procured in his years in Gaul. He used this to fund his army.

Caesar maintained that all he wanted was for the Senators to return and for them to work it all out. But the conservatives didn’t trust him. Cato’s personal dislike for him and Pompey’s resistance to being second to anyone else fueled their stubborn resolve not to negotiate.

Pompey fled down the Italian peninsula with his legions and set sail for Greece. Caesar followed but could not overtake him in time to prevent his leaving.

Much chaotic activity ensued for the next few years. Caesar avoided killing Romans, but he had no compunction about attacking Greek cities that resisted him. Pompey stood and fought occasionally, mostly losing and then fleeing again further south.

Eventually Pompey made it to Egypt, where he was promptly assassinated by Egyptians in power wanting to curry favor with Caesar, who was fast approaching. When Caesar saw Pompey’s head on a platter, he turned against the officials who had done this and instead aligned with Cleopatra. More shenanigans ensued.

But with Pompey dead, Caesar’s most powerful opponent (at least from a military point of view) was gone. Cato tried to lead, but when his armies were vanquished, he committed suicide. The war basically ended with that and Caesar returned to Rome.

Dictator for life

By then, Caesar was just about the last man standing from his generation of Senators. The orator Cicero remained, but he was notoriously non-confrontational and didn’t pose any kind of threat. Everyone else now working with Caesar in the government were younger, less seasoned men, such as Marc Antony (who was a disaster of licentiousness).

And Caesar had ideas. He wanted to scale up Roman influence across the continent, so he invited many of the tribes he had conquered to send representatives to become Senators. The Senate increased from 300 to 900 members. He wanted land reform, legal reform, and other progressive policies. He had a vision to reshape the Republic.

Some of these ideas infuriated the remaining (younger) optimates, who saw their own power being diluted with these reforms. But as Caesar took more and more on himself to decide and implement (because no other Senator had his energy or brilliance), it was this increased focus of power with one man that finally turned the men of integrity, such as Brutus, against him.

At a huge public ceremony, Caesar was presented by Marc Antony with a crown. He refused it three times and finally said the only ruler of Rome was the god Jupiter. But this dalliance with monarchy alarmed Brutus. He became enmeshed with other conspirators (who had decidedly more self-serving motivations) and agreed to Caesar’s betrayal and assassination. Indeed, his own family background almost demanded that he be the one to wield the knife.

Caesar was assassinated on March 15, the Ides of March. The Republic fell into disarray—Brutus hadn’t saved it at all—and after a decade or so of power struggle and further war, Caesar’s nephew and heir, Octavian, vanquished both Brutus and Marc Antony to become Augustus Caesar. Augustus’s unassailable dictatorship ushered in the hundred-year Pax Romana and created the Roman Empire.

How do we compare?

We’ve heard the word “demagogue” a lot in the news lately: “a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.” Caesar definitely used some of these tactics. However, the popular desires he was promoting were things like increased representation for common people, land reform that would benefit the army, distribution of wealth, revising the legal system, etc. The people loved him; his army worshiped him. But he had real ideas that would have changed the course of Europe if he had been allowed to implement them. His problem was that he didn’t realize the system would rise up against him in a reactionary tsunami.

Our leaders today likewise seem to be appealing to bigotry and hate on the one hand and emotional promises of better days on the other. Unfortunately, as in Roman times, we cannot rely on a fully informed electorate to make rational decisions in their own self-interest. We become buffeted by what sounds good or seems to make sense from our limited perspectives, and too few of us really take the time to study deeply what the long-term effects of some of the proposed polices would be. This is true on both sides of the political aisle. We become caught up in liking or disliking candidates based on our assessment of their personalities, rather than fully grasping their policies.

We certainly have conservative and progressive sides of the arena, stubbornly arrayed against each other and completely partisan. To like one side is to dislike the other. Nuance and compromise are discouraged. Small factions of disgruntled believers can take over their own districts, thereby disproportionately gaining influence at the federal level and causing intractable logjams of legislation. The government grinds, then, to a halt.  

Romans solved this by not letting the average person have any real say in decision making. Sure, you voted with your tribe for the magistrates each year, but those magistrates could only come from a very small pool of predetermined people. And they were the same people year after year, just switching around by position. Romans certainly didn’t bother to educate everyone.

In the end of the Republic, it came down to who of the principal families liked each other enough to work together. Years of suspicion, resentment, and jealousy finally solidified into making collegiality impossible. And Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

What’s in our favor? What makes our situation different?

We are not a political oligarchy, although sometimes it seems that way with a few of the same names coming up election after election (Kennedy, Bush, Clinton… can you say Senator Malia Obama?). But for us, any citizen can vote; any citizen can run for office, locally, regionally, nationally.

And, something that can’t be emphasized enough, we have a separation between being in political power and having control of the armed forces. No matter who is president, they will not be able to willy-nilly use the Army to cause insurrection. Nor can private citizens take control of the Marines, the Navy, the Coast Guard. The chain of command and the professionalism of the armed forces prevents it. This is actually a huge safeguard. Our senators do not have their own independent armies that they can sick on each other if the senators disagree. Our president is commander-in-chief, but even he/she is bound by the rule of law.

What could go wrong?

We might, however, be an economic oligarchy. Certain families and companies and industries with huge wealth have influence beyond their fair share, and they’re not even in office. They can buy politicians who make their ability to become even more wealthy a reality.

This concentration of wealth and influence in the hands of a few very much made the fall of the Republic a possibility. It’s an Achilles’ heel for us, too. Caesar had so much money he didn’t have to compromise or be diplomatic if he didn’t want to. We need to address that, probably with a more progressive tax code that—dare I say it—redistributes wealth and reduces influence being concentrated in the hands of a few. And no more Citizens United, obvi.

[thinkstorythots]

(2 of 3) Are we reliving the French Revolution?

(Second of a three-part series)

Another thing (besides Hitler and Rome) I kept wondering is how close we’re tracking with the French Revolution. You know, when the 99% basically overthrew the 1%. I like to look at the exact events that led up to changes because it’s in the details that we can find the cause and effect. Human history is not logical and deliberate, but a confluence of random events and decisions that cause repercussions that can get out of control. Thus was the French Revolution. Are we headed down that road today?

Not knowing that much about the details, I poked around online and found this delightful summary by John D. Ruddy:

French Revolution in 9 Minutes

(Seriously, watch all his stuff. And subscribe. And contribute.)

The French Revolution

Here are the deets:

1770s–1780s

France was governed by three “estates,” the Monarchy, Nobility (aristocrats), the Church.

Notice who’s missing? There was a divide between the above and the working people.

Worldwide colonialism of the time and conflicts were draining the French economy.

There were bad harvests and taxes on the lower classes, but tax exemptions for the nobility.

Many wars, including aiding the American Revolution, which did nothing for France itself, cost even more money.

1789

King Louis 16 and the Assembly of Notables (clergy and nobility) were out of touch with the people’s needs.

Meanwhile, the Age of Enlightenment was blossoming, including the ideals of freedom of thought and freedom of speech.

Louis tried to respond to the complaints he was hearing by taxing the nobles, but Assembly of Notables refused. (Duh!)

Instead, he brought together the Estates-General, something that hadn’t happened for decades.

o   First estate, clergy, had 303 representatives, covering 100,000 clergy.

o   Second estate, notables, had 291 representatives, covering 400,000 notables.

o   Third estate, common people, had 610 representatives, covering the other 95% of the population.

First and Second Estates wanted each estate to have one vote on each thing. So they’d outnumber the common people 2:1. Louis agreed with this idea.

Third Estate of course wanted to vote by number of representatives.

The thing dissolved in this disagreement and got nowhere. The Third Estate, including many of the well-educated of France, walked out and formed their own National Assembly.

Louis didn’t like this, ordered it to stop. Closed their meeting place. They relocated to a tennis court. Came up with a constitution.

Some members of First and Second Estates joined them.

Louis responded with military force.

People of Paris began to riot. Stormed the Bastille in July. Not only was it a prison, it was also an armory.

Louis backed down, let the assembly, now called the National Constituent Assembly, meet.

Lafayette leads at Louis’s request. White is added to the Red and Blue of the flag, to represent the common people.

But revolution continues to spread throughout France. Nobility flees to other countries. Chateaus are stormed. Feudalism is abolished, ending flow of taxes from poor to the First and Second Estates.

National Assembly publishes the Declaration of the Rights of Man, modeled on the American Declaration of Independence. It didn’t apply to women or slaves.

In October, women rose up and rioted. They feared that aristocrats were hoarding bread and starving the poor. They stormed Versailles, demanded Louis move back to Paris.

All land of Roman Catholic church confiscated. Clergy became controlled by the French, rather than Rome.

1790

Opposing parties begin to form while worked on new constitution. Three opinions: radical change now, one-step-at-a-time (let’s think this through), or constitutional monarchy like Britain.

Louis actually celebrated the first anniversary of the storming of the Bastille with the country.

Military in disarray as nobles left because the common soldiers wouldn’t obey them.

Many political parties sprung up, notably the Jacobins.

1791

Louis began to fear for his safety. Marie Antoinette urged him to get help from other countries. They fled for the Austrian border. They were discovered and brought back.

Their flight felt like a betrayal to the people. Talk of Republic began to stir.

People on the street petitioned to depose the king.

Lafayette tried to calm people down. Stones thrown, soldiers fired into the crowd and killed dozens.

Other countries threaten to invade to defend Louis.

People pissed.

But new constitution was announced, from the Legislative Assembly, which included a king included. This attempt failed miserably.

1792

France declares war on other countries, military a mess, deserting armies, etc.

Insurrection of 10 August, Louis captured by mob.

Government suspended the monarchy.

Austrian forces advanced.

Massacres of prisoners who were thought to be disloyal. Rest of France urged to follow suit.

Another new constitution to follow by the National Convention. Declared France a republic. 22 September.

The French army beat the Austrian army.

1793

Louis was tried by the Convention for treason because he’d tried to flee.

They executed him, January.

Rest of European monarchs woke up.

War. Food shortages. Jacobins seized power, headed by Robespierre.

Many more executions. Robespierre wanted to stamp out anti-revolutionaries. Reign of Terror.

Government became anti-Christian, closing churches, etc. It changed weeks into ten days and renamed the months so people would forget what day was Sunday. Alternate churches sprang up, like the Cult of Reason.

1794

People got tired of the chaos. The Jacobin club banned. Robespierre executed.

Other nations had watched in horror, but didn’t take advantage of the chaos. Soon though, they started the War of the First Coalition against France.

1795

Yet another new constitution, of the “year three,” formed The Directory. France governed by five guys (directors). Not great.  

1797

Bonaparte wins some battles. Ends War of First Coalition.

1798

War of the Second Coalition.

Bonaparte tried to disrupt grain from Egypt; British Lord Nelson defeated him at sea, kept him stuck there for a while.

1799

Bonaparte heard of France needing him, went home. Overthrew The Directory in Paris.

Produced yet another constitution, declaring himself the First Consul.

French Consulate begins. Military Dictatorship.

How do we compare?

The aspect of the French Revolution that is the most similar to our own time is the huge disparity in economic power between the people at the top and the common person—the 1% vs. the 99%, if you will. Because the various French attempts at government were ineffective or unwilling to address this, in the end, the only way the common person (including intellectuals and professionals, just not nobility) could exert any influence was to rebel violently. And rebel they did.

So it’s interesting to consider how we, in America, have created a “noble” class based on money. I read a fascinating book lately, The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly, which makes this exact case. Interestingly, this book was published in 2001, before 9/11, before the 2008 bubble burst. Yet still the author could write intense concepts like this:

Foremost among aristocratic privileges, in the era before the French Revolution, were rights to endless streams of income, detached from productive contribution. We find this same privilege reserved today for stockholders and denied to employees.

Kelly’s book is an eye-opening look at how we’ve reproduced the feudal system, with stockholders being the privileged (meaning corporations have to exclusively do what’s best for them), and the ones actually creating the capital—employees—considered to be merely an expense, and the less you pay for them, the better. She posits in her book a different system entirely in which employees are considered to be part of the value of the company, an asset, and should be accounted for that way.

Do we here in America have an income gap? Yes, we do. Are people angry about it? Yes, they are. Are the angry people armed and ready to fight? Well, yes, many are just looking for the opportunity or for a leader. Should we do something about it? I think so!

What’s in our favor

Prior to the French Revolution, people were starving. I mean, literally starving. There was not enough food. Here in America, while we do have problems with unequal distribution of healthy food and there is hunger for many, there is not a huge problem with starvation. Consequently, people are not quite as desperate as they were in France.

Our officials, as messed up as they are sometimes, are answerable to us in ways the French nobility never was. We can actually vote. This was new to France, but we’ve been doing it for a long time now. Sure, we often get the government we deserve, but at least we know we put them there.

There was no “opposition” to the French monarchy. Opposition to royalty back then was considered treason, and you didn’t last long if you persisted in it. The French Revolution is one long story of the opposition taking shape over time, with pendulum swings between violent outbursts, reasoned debate, emotional catharsis, and trial and error.

This brings up one of the differences between the French and the American Revolutions, even though they happened around the same time. The American colonies had been governing themselves democratically quite effectively for a long time before King George III imposed new and unfair laws that tried to extract income from them without any additional rights or benefits. In other words, the king tried to take things away from Americans that they already had. They knew how to be democratic already because they had been living that way for a while. The French had no such background in democracy—and they had to learn as they went. My thinking is this is true of many new democracies that form after violent revolution. They have to learn how to allow for the rule of law as a country and often swing in and out of violence as they try to get it right. America was very fortunate in that way that we had the underpinning we had going in.

So we today are practiced at democracy (such as it is) and the rule of law in ways the French weren’t at that time. We may not like Citizen’s United, for example, but we know we can elect officials to repeal it. We have a Supreme Court. We have representative government, both locally, at the state level, and nationally. This is actually pretty awesome, and however slow it seems to change sometimes, it is built with enough checks and balances that change can happen in relative safety. We may be infuriated by the way things are, but you and I are most likely not afraid that we will be hauled off and guillotined because we tweet our dissatisfaction with our government, no matter what Mr. Orange says. (We need to keep him out of office, though.)

We also have a Constitution that has stood the test of time in many ways and can be adapted—we’re not writing draft after draft while bullets are flying. We have freedom of speech already. We have freedom of satire. We have freedom of documentary. We have freedom of the press. Sure, we have rumor and disinformation and flaming opinions with the best of them, but we have the space to consider it all and form our own conclusions. Reason has a chance to prevail and win the day. We start debating issues, for example, long before an election actually occurs. We have months, sometimes years, to think through what we believe is the best course, and then we can vote accordingly. And, because we know the vote is coming, we don’t have to revolt.

What could go wrong?

The income gap is something we must address as a country. It’s obscene, most people know this, and there is a large contingent of the American population who is convinced the government has caused it and will never fix it—that the government had become the enemy. It is that contingent who must be listened to, respected, and given real solutions.

Our problem right now is that very contingent is being encouraged to blame anyone but the people responsible. Instead of blaming the forces that are concentrating wealth to the 1%, they are being taught to blame other races, other religions, other sexual orientations, other ethnicities. They are being fooled as to the real nature of the threat. They therefore are articulating their anger with very unfortunate symbolism and wording that reflects the dangerous rhetoric they’ve been fed. This causes those who are offended by the symbolism and wording to write that contingent off as not worth helping.

We must resist this scenario. If we allow the writing off of a sizeable portion of angry people, we may find the anger festers. Even if they do not win this election cycle, they are still there. The right kind of leader could galvanize them into working against their own interests.

So what is the answer?

I believe the best answer is the one the French tried: enlightenment. Besides all the mechanisms that should be put in place to encourage income equality and universal opportunity, the one thing that has led us to this pass is falling down in the area of education. We must commit to making education a priority, equalizing it across the country and across differing neighborhoods, so that the native intelligence inherent in all people is allowed to blossom. A brain exists to be filled. If we don’t fill it with fact and reason, it will fill with something else.

[thinkstorythots]

(1 of 3) Are we reliving the rise of the Nazis?

There’s so much talk about a particular person (who I don’t want to name because I don’t want to be found by search engines) in the news being like Hitler, I decided to look into it. How much is the time we’re living through now like the rise of the Nazis? What should we be looking out for?

I watched this awesome documentary on YouTube as a refresher on WWII:

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

Okay, the music leaves something to be desired. And it’s expressly easy on the United States as far as our quite tardy involvement in taking Hitler down. But it has a fairly in-depth (for video) and detailed look at how exactly Hitler managed to go from being essentially nobody to running a country and taking over most of Europe. It’s worth a watch if you want to dip in.

So what were the key points?

Hitler’s basic personality and history

He was nobody. He had nothing but his hate and megalomania.

He fought in WWI; only got to corporal. No particular talent.

He was disappointed in career and life. No success until pursuing political power.

Hitler’s environment

The German people were nationalistic already, but horribly beat down.

The end of WWI was a shock to them.

They lived in a police state as well, imposed from the outside after the war.

People were starving.

Hitler told a colleague, “A man who is hungry, if he dreams in the night, he doesn’t dream of bread and butter but of caviar and champagne.”

Hitler’s initial trajectory

Hitler starts from nothing, just himself and a couple colleagues, Hess, Strasser, etc. Most stay with him to the end; others he betrays when they seem to want too much power.

Makes a first attempt at taking power. United right wing extremists in Bavaria, a province that includes Munich.

First had to seize control of the local government.

Gathers 3,000 storm troops, takes hostages.

Aligns with aging fanatic from WWI, a general, to get support of army.

1923 marches to take over Bavaria. But the army will not support. Leading his men, he goes forward. Into Munich, the Odeonsplatz (a public square).

Police fight him. 19 dead. Hitler flees.

He’s caught and tried for treason, but the people in the Bavarian court basically agree with the hateful philosophy he espouses on the witness stand and he turns the trial into a triumph.

He is sentenced to five years in prison, but only serves nine months. Sunny room. Unlimited books and papers, visits, flowers, etc. Secretary Hess voluntarily joins his master in prison!

And what he gets is a nice leisurely time to dictate Mein Kampf. He was 35 years old. The book is dismissed as confused nonsense, but later known to be the bible of a new barbarism.

Points from it:

o   German Aryan is the master race; all others are chaff.

o   Inferior peoples are destined to be German slaves.

o   Terror will always succeed unless opposed by equal terror.

o   France is the mortal enemy of Germany and must be destroyed.

o   Symbol for all evil assumes the shape of the Jew.

He’s home in time for Christmas.

Hitler’s assets

But unfortunately for him, good times have come to Germany. 1924. Inflation halted, country back to work. Hardships of WWI defeat are fading.

Germany is accepted in League of Nations as equal member.

Conservative General Hindenburg is in power. He strengthens the regime against extremists.

Hitler is forbidden to speak. Waits for times to turn. Lives the life of a country squire. Cultivates socially important friends. Stalled by general prosperity.

Hitler’s needs

Besides the basic narcissistic and megalomaniacal needs, he had some practical things he needs as well to gain power.

o   He needs the support of the army.

o   He needs a network of supporters/followers.

o   He needs to control the media.

o   He needs a bewildered population.

He set to work over the next several years building up just that.

Begins to unify party and get ready.

Extends party’s roots. Cells throughout Germany, even Europe. Organized all over.

Spreads hate for the Republic, Versailles treaty, Communists, Jews.

Constant party rallies. Growing Nazi might. Nuremberg is a huge Nazi camp. All armed and uniformed.

Hitler invents ritual and new myth.

Those who submit to his will he rewards with belief they are supermen.

Hitler’s luck

Then, 1929. Economy collapses. Depression. Hitler jumps on it.

Communists also try to use the Depression to take over.

Nazi promises German pride. Promises the release of violence. Nazis are proud to be called barbarians.

Fighting in the streets between Nazis and Communists. Both sides promise to dismantle democratic Germany.

Everyone looks to Hindenburg, he is failing. 84.

1930 Nazis win 1/6 of the vote. They come into Parliament with the intention of dismantling the government. Not to respect parliamentary process but to destroy Parliament itself.

“We support a program of catastrophe because catastrophe would bring an end to the system.” Gregor Strasser

They bring orderly government to a standstill.

There is no strong opposition, only many splintered groups.

Hindenburg runs again in 1932 for President. Hitler also runs.

Hitler convinces industrial barons to support him so he can save them from Communists.

The opposition is lame. Colorless. Hindenburg campaigns entirely through surrogates.

Hitler flies all over, the first to do so, going all over Germany like a rock star. Crowds.

Riots everywhere between Nazis and Communists.

Hitler claims the government is taking away people’s hope. His movement is the best. Etc.

Everyone votes March 13, 1932. Hindenburg wins, supported by the liberals and socialists he hates. Hitler loses by 6M votes. 37.3%.

Supporters turn on him, people think he’s through.

But the opposition suspends rule of law to keep Nazis in check. Paves way for him.

The Army keeps changing sides. Machinations all over the place.

Much chaos. Hindenburg, weak and dying, finally brings Hitler in, Jan. 30, 1933, and appoints him Chancellor.

Hitler’s opposition

1933 Nazis respectable. But they’re revolutionaries.

Army won’t commit.

Hitler doesn’t have control yet, but the forces in his way are divided and weak.

He takes control of radio and the press to saturate the news.

He forms secret police to terrorize.

He is charismatic. The German messiah.

Propaganda against Communists. Burns Parliament building, blames Communists.

Demands new powers, which Parliament grants. Kills democracy.

Arrests the opposition. Politicals first. Tortured into confession and executed.

What will German army do? Hitler has private army, but it’s headed by Strasser, who is becoming a threat. Hitler betrays him and kicks him out.

Hindenburg dies.

Hitler takes over the army.

Cult of personality forms. Hitler = Germany.

Things start looking good. German industry reawakens. Hitler disbands unions and freezes wages, but there is prosperity.

Now turns on Jews. Formal restrictions. Isolated, boycotted, humiliated, condemned.

Everyone rounded up. Books burned. Encourages violence.

Breaks Versailles treaty by rearming the German military.

Other countries fall in line. No resistance. England appeases.

Attacks Rhineland. 1936. France folds.

Takes over Austria March 1938.

Kristallnacht Nov. 1938.

Eats Czechoslovakia March 1939.

Separate peace with Stalin. Sept. 1939 takes Poland. England now in the war because of alliances.

Takes France, June 1940.

Churchill becomes Prime Minister of England at the end of 1940.

Betrays Stalin June 1941. Fighting at Moscow. Cannot break through. Hitler will not withdraw. Beginning of the end.

Attack on Pearl Harbor Dec. 1941. Now he’s got the U.S. to worry about.

After that, it was just a matter of everything playing itself out to its logical conclusion. Hitler didn’t start out trying to take Moscow and murdering Jews on day one. He built up (or down) to that.

How do we compare today?

Our favorite demagogue doesn’t look like Hitler did at the end of his career. He only looks marginally like Hitler did at the beginning. However, there are disturbing threads we need to watch out for.

We now know from the orange menace’s rise that there are white supremacists in our midst—way more than we thought—who would like nothing better than to overthrow our current government and wreak havoc in the name of revolution. They’re not even hiding it anymore. They really mean it. We know a lot of these people are armed. We know they are all over the country—small-hands man got primary votes in every single state, every single district, lots of votes. Each of those votes represents someone who might leap at the chance to impose a new order if they could be assured they would wind up as part of the favored group. Unable to get there on their own merit, they’re okay with taking and keeping supremacy by bullying and force. He may not be the leader they need to truly unify, but there could be another nascent demagogue in the making right now watching him and taking notes, who could take advantage of many elements of today’s environment to rise up and coalesce everything.

What’s in our favor? What makes our situation different?

We have a well-developed two-party system that is offering up a strong opposition to the lies and hate. This opposition was temporarily fragmented, but it has solidified and by all projections will win massively in November.

We have a longer history of democracy. Germany was still a relatively young republic, having been an “empire” with a supreme ruler up to the end of WWI. The Weimar Republic, set up after the war and responsible for the surrender to the Allies, headed up by one man, Hindenburg, for the duration until Hitler’s rise, didn’t have the roots in the German system required to be able to surmount a challenge of this scope. For all our faults, our republic has a lot more experience at being a republic. The vast majority of our citizenry just want to mind their own business and live their lives. Our complacency is sometimes a problem, but we also show marked ability to rise up and unite when we finally realize something is not right.

We have a much more diverse population than Germany did in the 1920s and ’30s, and we have the Internet. People of color, non-cishet sexual identities, and even women now understand the risks to their life and limb if a Hitler-wannabe gains foothold, and they are increasingly joining together, speaking up, and being heard. Regarding women, both white and POC, we are now much more powerful as a group than they were back then. We may prove to be the decisive counterbalance to Nazi-esque toxic white masculinity run amok, not just with our candidate but with ourselves. For the most part, these aspects of our demographics guarantee that the majority of people will always be on the side of social justice. However, we need those groups to be intersectional and resist turning on each other.

What could go wrong?

There is still be a sizeable subset of bigots, now revealed, who sound like they’re willing and eager and perhaps even looking forward to being violent under the right circumstances. It’s important to remember that Hitler did not have the majority when he came to power. He didn’t actually win an election, but was brought on board to placate his angry and violent hordes of bullies. How to mitigate that today is the real challenge. Ensuring that today’s version of unruly white supremacist gangs do not organize to the point where they can become a real force to reckoned with (as opposed to following the farce of a candidate they have now) must be a priority for those who value liberty and peace. We must make sure they do not find a leader who can actually lead. If they do find a leader, we must stand up to their tactics as soon as they show themselves and not wait until they become too organized. We can be grateful that these misguided folks in our midst have now been exposed; we have to keep an eye on them.

Our economy today is pretty good, and in recovery from the assault of the Wall Street meltdown of 2008. But if the economy should turn again, or if the fallout from climate change should create sudden and intense disruption, or if the powder keg of race relations should ignite, we may find the undercurrents of bigotry only need an excuse. They may be, like Hitler, just waiting for the next opportunity to strike. We have to be ready.

[thinkstorythots]

I’m White American. Who knew?

This post is particularly for my fellow White Americans. People of color are welcome to read it, but I’m guessing it will probably just make you laugh or shake your head.

I’m having a paradigm shift.

I’ve always thought of myself as American. I’m American, I think, whenever I am asked to make such a categorization.

But I’m actually not. There’s actually no such thing as the universal “American”–an American with no qualifier. And for me to have thought I was and that other subsets somehow were the same as me was the ultimate invalidation of those who are practically required to include a qualifier every time they speak of themselves.

I’m a White American. I experience America in the particular way that White people do. I’ve never been anything else. I’ve never experienced anything else. It’s all I will ever be. I am not and cannot be representative of what it means to be American for every citizen of this country. I’m only an example of the White part.

[I’m also female and heterosexual with no obvious disabilities beside near-sightedness (itself a metaphor). So I’m a White female heterosexual American. I can only speak to that.]

I am not American in any total sense of the word. I can’t possibly be. In fact, no one can stand there and claim to be fully American. No one experiences America in the wide totality of all the ways it can be experienced; no one receives or lives the total range of the privileges and curses that America provides to subsets of its citizens.

Now that I know this, that I’m a subset and not the baseline (how arrogant to have ever thought that!), it’s making me think weird and radical thoughts. Like, if I really want to understand my country, I have to learn how everyone is experiencing it, not just people who look like me. If I really want to support my country, I have to feel a common citizenry bond with those who have had very different lived experiences than my own. If I really want to cherish my country, I have to embrace that this diversity is what makes this country what it is, with all the burdens and glories of what those differences mean to different people. If I really want to love my country, I need to open up and shake out the blanket of privilege so that it covers equally all who call this land home.

Today I believe that until every single citizen of this country has the same opportunities, privileges, rights, and responsibilities, none of us can really take credit for being American. We are not fully American unless and until every other citizen is, too.

[thinkstorythots]

The invisible sexism of “Go Set a Watchman”

As I wrote in another blog post, I was prompted to read Go Set a Watchman (which I had been firmly against reading because of how weird the publishing scenario was) by my currently re-reading To Kill a Mockingbird in French. I had a theory I wanted to test out.

My theory, that Harper Lee would give further insights into the racism of Heck Tate, was woefully wrong. However, I noticed something else that was very disturbing about GSAW. I read every online review I could find to see if they agreed with me. But something was missing from every single review I read.

NPR

The Guardian, I

The Guardian, II

Amazon

The New Yorker

The New York Times

The reviews all focus on the racism of our hero Atticus Finch. They focus on Jean Louise’s protests of egalitarianism and how the two of them argue over the finer points after her discovery of how racist he is. She’s visiting her menfolk from New York City, and she’s learned all kinds of liberal big-city ways. And she’s going to spew about them and they’re going to smile and smile at her like she’s being adorable.

And there it is. The sexism. Not one of those reviewers mention it. It’s like it’s invisible.

There is not one mention in any of the above reviews of the systemic, patronizing, degrading, sexist treatment Jean Louise is subjected to every waking moment of her time back home. There is not one criticism or even mention of the domestic violence, when Jean Louise is belted so hard by her uncle that it gives her a concussion and draws blood. His excuse? He’s trying to “attract [her] attention.” Why don’t any of our enlightened publications of today explore that fact? Why isn’t it as shocking as the racism is?

The men in Jean Louise’s life proceed to talk sense into her and to mansplain her to death. And she takes it. In the end, she’s probably going to stay down there, because the South needs people like her. She does exactly what the men tell her to do.

The sexism is so taken for granted, I don’t think the author was even aware of it. She presents it as completely fine. The main character gets slugged, for god’s sake, by her own flesh and blood, and this is discussed as though it is the usual way for a man to get a woman’s attention down there in lovely ol‘ Maycomb. Certainly she doesn’t blame him for it; certainly she doesn’t even tell her own father, and if she did, certainly that father wouldn’t defend her or even get angry about intense bodily harm done to her by his own brother.

Yes, the racism in the book is over-the-top and disgusting. It’s obvious and jarring. But why isn’t the sexism as jarring? Why is it invisible? Not only to Harper Lee and the characters in her book, but to us?

Here’s one review, at least, that addresses the subject:

The News Hub

And that’s a publication I need to read more often.

[thinkstorythots]

The higher standard

What it Means to Ask Hillary to be Magnanimous

I read this about holding Hillary to a "higher standard," and for the first time I thought, Maybe Americans actually want the higher standard. We're yearning for the higher standard. We want our leaders to represent the best of us, not the worst.

But the privileged group, who have been spoiled by their privilege, can't even conceptualize this higher standard of behavior because they're spoiled and are used to throwing temper tantrums, flat out lying, name-calling, throwing around their money, and asserting their privilege to get their way.

So since we collectively (as can be shown by the votes so far) want the "higher standard" to actually be the "normal standard," we have to count on women and people of color to show how it's done because they're the most practiced at doing it since they've had to adhere to it pretty closely to get anything done at all.

[thinkstorythots]

"To Kill A Mockingbird”: time to stop teaching it?

I’m re-reading To Kill a Mockingbird in French. (I like to read English novels I know very well in French to strengthen my French skills.) Although I’ve read it many times, this is the first time I’m reading it since becoming more woke to intersectional civil rights issues, in particular after following the Black Lives Matter movement and recognizing how important it is. 

Now, I’m seeing Heck Tate as if for the first time. I’ve read TKAM probably fifteen or twenty times in my life. I know many scenes by heart (as is evidenced by my being able to decipher them readily in French). And I never noticed an inherent racial contradiction about Heck Tate.

You’ll remember he’s the police officer that was first on the scene of white Mayella Ewell’s “rape” by the black man Tom Robinson. He’s also the first on the scene at the murder of Bob Ewell by Boo Radley. For the first time on this read-through (in French), I noticed what the Black Lives Matter movement has been telling us: same cop, different treatment according to race.

There was no evidence that Tom Robinson had actually raped Mayella Ewell. In fact, all evidence (especially his crippled arm) pointed to her being beaten (not raped at all) by her father and that Tom could not have done it. But this evidence was disregarded, nay, not even considered (as shown by Tate’s testimony on the witness stand), nay, not even sought. Tate didn’t even try to piece together what actually happened. It was two white people accusing a black man, and his investigation stopped there.

When it came to white Boo Radley, though, from a privileged family on the “good” side of town, with his “shy ways,” Tate not only examined the evidence correctly but then falsified it. He convinced stalwart Atticus Finch to do the same. The crime was swept under the rug entirely. Bob Ewell “fell on his knife.” The main character, Scout Finch, then escorts the white murderer home as though he’s a gentleman.

Obviously I love TKAM. I’ve loved it all my life. But if it’s being taught in schools at face value, without pointing out this racial bias, it’s doing our nation a disservice. The way the cop handles the two investigations is not put under any kind of critical analysis in the book itself; while she decries the justice of the first case, I believe Harper Lee was blind to the injustice of the second herself, as a product of her geography and time. The book absolutely presents the murder case at the end as being handled correctly and justly. It also doesn’t hold Heck Tate responsible at all for revealing the truth about Mayella’s “rape” -- it leaves that to the hero, Atticus Finch, to do so in court. This makes for good courtroom drama, but it doesn’t help us much with black/police relations. And if we’re teaching this book to kids without explaining how Heck Tate was wrong on both counts, we’re messing things up royally.

Here’s a study guide question from Cliff’s Notes:

5. Would Heck Tate have filed charges against Tom Robinson so quickly if Tom were white? Why or why not? Would Sheriff Tate have been so unwilling to file charges against Boo Radley if Boo was black? Why or why not?

That’s a start, anyway. But to me the point is that Heck Tate didn’t do his job correctly in either case. He’s a sworn officer of the law, and he just plain didn’t do his job. He should be held accountable for that. He’s presented, though, as a good guy. The fact that things haven’t changed that much is all the more upsetting.

So I think we should stop teaching this book in school, unless it’s with an eye to showing students how to parse out the fallacies inherent in the book’s conclusions. Justice was subverted in both cases in Maycomb, but the book doesn’t know that. We need to.

[thinkstorythots]

The womb/dick economy

This piece is ringing bells with me:

Bernie Bros Made Me Finally Recognize Misogyny in America

The author says:

Decades ago, Gloria Steinem had talked about the “click,” moments, those aha, revelatory, eureka moments when a woman suddenly recognizes the gender discrimination she faces. I am sorry to say, I never had one of those consciousness-raising moments. That is to say, I had plenty of them. But on the behalf of others. Never for myself.

I, too, over the years, tried to look at my own career through the filter of my own cause-and-effect, meaning, it was always my choices that created the results I achieved. I’d be further along if I’d done x, or y, or z, rather than thinking there was anything systemic that got in my way.

It’s a strange feeling to look back and remember making those choices and feeling like I had self-determination at the time, but now recognizing the deck was stacked against me because I have a womb.

And I say “womb” rather than “vagina,” because for me, I think that was more the deciding factor. My womb produced children, which then made certain choices inevitable, at least for me. The kids came first. That was a rule in my head or heart or gonads that may or may not have been biological but it definitely ran my life for 20+ years.

Yes, I chose to get divorced. Yes, I had the second child even though I wasn’t married. But I also chose to put them first and to sacrifice and to make their living situation my priority. Did I get the child support I was entitled to by law? In the one case, I got an initial amount awarded to me, but as his income grew, I made the choice not to “go after” him for more. I felt I’d done enough to him and I was working, right? And of course, he never volunteered to adjust the amount on his own, why would he? In the other case, the gentleman involved simply didn’t pay more than a bit here and there. Even taking him to court and getting a court order didn’t result in him paying. So that was actually a negative financially.

So I worked full time and spent what little disposable income I had on daycare and nannies and after-school programs to fill in the gaps in childcare. Or, I got laid off and worked from home, juggling that and transporting everyone to school every day and keeping house myself with basically poverty level income. All those years of just survival added up. I couldn’t save, or I chose not to save, since I wanted the kids to have the best life possible. I couldn’t build on any of my career steps because they were nonlinear. I bought a house, truly an ill-advised moment, because that’s what good parents do, and then couldn’t sell it during the 2008 downturn when I was also out of a job.

I’m not saying all this to feel sorry for myself. What I want to highlight is the financial impact having an active womb had on me. I am white, college educated, privileged in every respect, except for that. I could not save. I could not pamper myself. I was working 24/7. It wore on me, and it made career decisions, such as the time I could have gone to law school but didn’t, or the time I moved us across country for a job that would give us more income but I’d have less time with the kids at home, happen out of desperation more than what would have been best for me, personally, in the long run. I did the best for the kids and I’m very proud of them. My own career now though, in my 50s, is not where I’d ever hoped it would be. Frankly, I should be much further along.

So I write now and run my business and live very simply in the best town in the country. A nest egg has appeared due to an inheritance (from a male), so my personal bacon might have been saved when it comes to retirement, and I’m blessed by that. It’s not a bad life. I just wonder sometimes where I’d be now if my womb could have made the same decisions the dicks in my life did.

[thinkstorythots]

Gotta move out of coal

Saw this today from The Hill:

Man emotionally confronts Clinton on coal remarks

The man’s troubles really touched me. Hillary was as reassuring as she could be in the situation, but there are no easy answers. His livelihood is disappearing. As a climate activist, I know it needs to disappear. But that doesn’t stop me from feeling pain for him.

The problem is one we can only solve together. As one industry dies, another, or many, has to take its place. And for a region to attract new industries, there have to be incentives. The market alone won’t do it. There needs to be policies in place, put there by insightful and forward looking government, that motivate the new companies to invest. How can we work together to make that happen?

Here’s what I would tell him if I could.

Have you ever moved from an apartment to a new house? You know how hard that is. You have to be motivated. You’re in a place you’ve been for a while, you’ve been fairly comfortable, and you’re used to it. But your family is growing. In order to do what’s right for them, you get yourself to a real estate agent and you find a new house. But that’s just the beginning. You have to get the money for the house. You have to pack up all the stuff you want to take with you. You have to throw out what you don’t want anymore. Then you’ve got to haul everything up and move it across town to the new place. You’ve got to move in, you’ve got to meet your neighbors, you’ve got to get your kids in the new school.

That’s what this is like. You’re moving out of one place and into another. The next place is better, but it takes a lot of effort to get there. You have to be motivated. Not only that, in this case, everyone you know is also moving. So you’ve got to work together, to help each other.

Your community has got to move away from coal. It’s not good enough for you anymore. You need a better place. The transition will be tough. You can’t rely on your company’s s good intentions to make the transition happen. Not every new business will come in there with a noble motivation to help you either. So there have to be incentives, which come from policies, which come from representatives you elect to help you make the move.

If you elect people who refuse to help you move, who won’t even admit there’s a reason to move and who are okay with the apartment burning down around you and not providing someplace new for you to move into, it will be a lot harder. If you and your neighbors elect people who know the move is coming and want to plan for it and help you move in, the entire transition will be easier. Not easy, but easier.

It’s okay to come together as a group to make something happen. That’s what government is for.

[thinkstorythots]

Money’s gotta change

Today I was reading about money. It’s research for the scifi/time-travel/climate-change trilogy I’m writing. I got interested in the history of money from reading a book about how capitalism is ruining the world. So now I’m wondering, how did money evolve? Is it necessary? What did we do before money?

This book says:

The vast bulk of goods that passed through the Aztec Empire moved primarily as tribute from the peripheral parts of the empire to its capital.

This is before money as currency. It was goods being moved from one area to another, at the behest of overlords. So the very concept of trade started as a way to concentrate wealth. For the privileged to accumulate and enjoy things they hadn’t actually made. 

Which suggests to me that the concept of property itself is along those lines. We’ve been taught that accumulating things is a sign of power, of privilege. But what if it weren’t? Meaning, what if we knew that accumulating things was just ego run amuck?

I’m trying to figure out what the world would look like without money. And it seems it might need to be a world without possessions. As one of our great poets has said, “imagine” that.