Laozi (UK: /ˈlaʊˈzɪə/,[2] US: /ˈlaʊˈtsiː/; also
Lao-Tzu /ˈlaʊˈtsuː/,[2] /ˈlaʊˈdzʌ/[3][4] or Lao-Tze /ˈlaʊˈdzeɪ/;[5]
Chinese: 老子; pinyin: Lǎozǐ, literally "Old Master") was an ancient Chinese philosopher and writer. He is the reputed author of the Tao Te Ching,[6] the founder of philosophical Taoism, and a deity in religious Taoism and traditional Chinese religions.
The Start of the Dao De Jing:
道可道，非常道。名可名，非常名。無名天地之始；有名萬物之母。故常無欲，以觀其妙；常有欲，以觀其徼。此兩者，同出而異名，同謂之玄。玄之又玄，衆妙之門
(Embodying the Dao)
The Dao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Dao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name. (Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven and earth; (conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all things.
Always without desire we must be found,
If its deep mystery we would sound;
But if desire always within us be,
Its outer fringe is all that we shall see.
Under these two aspects, it is really the same; but as development takes place, it receives the different names. Together we call them the Mystery. Where the Mystery is the deepest is the gate of all that is subtle and wonderful.
|
LaoZi or "Lao-Tzu" is sort of attributed to being the founder of "Legalism." It is difficult to explain the "simplicity" of the words in Chinese above. The expression
"道可道, 非常道" - is only a few characters. The words "Dao" is as common as the English word "Know" or "Be" - and when used here, it is really just implying that "everybody is different," mainly
because "only God's Road is the the Eternal Road" - but man cannot walk God's Road - but only try. One common expression coming out of "Lao-Tzu" is the title "My Words are Easy to Understand." It would be similar to a large, loud-mouthed police in the US shouting at you to "explain yourself in simple terms." Legalism just sort of implies that people should slow down, think about what they are doing, if they have achieved success, is it a lasting success? The Muslims have often said "There is no God, but God" (لا إله إلا الله) according the Google Translate. It is of similar origins.
Who the f*** do you think you are Mr. Boss man? What makes your way and you so special?
"It is not if you win or lose, but how you play the game." This was a commonly repeated phrase that I often heard when I was growing up, both from my parents and from teachers - and even people on TV. In the life of both my parents, the United States had engaged in quite a bit of war practices. The wars for the US came into full swing beginning in 1941, and continuing on for most of the first 40 years of my mom & dad's lives. The US Government had all kinds of proclamations of why the USMC was overseas killing people to promote it's "Freedom."
What the USMC and USAF achieved in Europe, today, is often widely respected as having put an end to some high levels of violence, incompetent leaders (Hitler, Mussolini, & Stalin) and eventually brought some really great American Culture (
read: music, albums, Elvis and Beatles Concerts, for example) to War Torn Europe who had lived under the Authority of the Russian Tsar/Emperor for just a few decades too long. Don't fool yourself: "War is Hell" is what they used to say to us when we were kids. For every German/Kraut that Hitler killed in his death camps, more Germans perished at the heavy handed of bombings by the USAF over places like Normandy, Dresden, and from amphibious landings on the "Underbelly of Europe" - at Italian Towns like Anzio.
Furthermore, it is has been said before that the same detention camps that Hitler used at Auschwitz, Sobibor, DaChau and Treblinka were also used by the United States Army during the Nuremberg Trials. Thousands of recovering German Soldiers were also imprisoned in these concentration camps - and even killed when they were tried for crimes against the German People. To say "America was a Knight in Shining Armor" liberating the Germans as they "just sort of keeled over and died or surrendered" by the brilliant sight of the Marines of "Bravo Company" - would be an outright lie.
They did, however, achieve defeat of the German Army, and Europe has been at peace for almost 80 years now - a feat as spectacular as the peace that the Russians themselves had once brought to Western Europe a century before via the Greater Russian Leaders like Tsar Nicholas and Tsar Alexander the Great.
One might argue that "the means" of George S. Patton were extremely lacking some of the "finer qualities" that a soldier ought employ. Words such as "collateral damage" come to mind as it is well known that millions of Europeans died during the second world war. Though people sometimes claim that discussions about "The Holocaust" are often overblown -
that there is simply no way Hitler was that evil - one thing nobody would ever be able to deny is that between The Battle of the Buldge, The Bombing of Dresden, the Landings at Normandy, and the Concentration Camps at Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Dachau, etc., did take the lives of millions.
Again, remember, during the Nuremburg Trials, those very death camps that Hitler created were "re-used" by the U.S. Army to try NAZI War Criminals - and many NAZI's were also killed during those trials.
Is it safe to say that "the ends" and "the means to achieve" were reasonable in the years of WWII - which America's soldiers fought? Well, today, the "talking idiot box" (U.S. Televised Media), all we ever hear is that we should thank our boys in uniform. This type of talk, of course, should foster a different type of action and rhetoric. I personally wish jet fighter planes from Lubbock of Fort Hood should take of and bomb Washington, today, 2018. There is nobody alive, today in 2018, that ever fought the Germans in World War II. None of the soldiers who killed the innocent in Afghanistan ever "served their country on D-Day." None of them did. World War II was an event that will not be rivaled or repeated in history for it's massive outpouring of violence an bloodshed. The only reason most agree that it was a successful operation is that, here in year 2018, the Nations of France, Germany, Poland, England, Spain & Italy have not fought a single conflict since 1944. And though many innocent people were "bombed into the stone-age" by the U.S. Air Force, Neville Chamberlain's "lasting peace" has actually been achieved.
"You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs." The "collateral damage" that did cost the lives of many, many non-military, un-armed Germans during the years of the second World War and the Holocaust was not a great achievement by the USMC. World War I was often called "The Great War." If you read much about World War 1, then you would know that it occurred in the years 1914 to 1918 - and largely took place in trenches between France & Germany. In these trenches German Soldiers would occupy one side of "The Maginot Line" and French Soldiers would occupy the other side. In this war, generally, the concept that running through the streets of Berlin, Paris, London or Rome was totally against the rules - totally off limits! What made World War 1 so great? Well, I've always said that when a soldier shoots another soldier, the rules of war - the requirements the mark the difference between "a soldier" and "a murderer" a strictly obeyed. Yes, many died in trench warfare, but NO, nobody was exterminated in death camps, nor cities and homes filled with women, children, or civilian men died either.
- In World War II, the U.S. Army did not obey these rules whatsoever.
- On the other hand, peace was achieved for a very long time,
America knew what it was getting into, the American Heartland - the Tri-State Area of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvannia - had been run so full of German, Italian, French and English immigrants that the words "Land of Immigrants" or "The Great Melting Pot" were often used to describe the East Cost of the U.S.A. We knew and understood Europe because (if you were white) we were all once Europeans
Public Wikipedia Articles: John D. Rockefeller,
Rockefeller Family,
Standard Oil Company,
Petroleum in USA,
Kykuit,
Unions,
Ludlow Massacre,
Sherman Anti-Trust Act,
The Knights of Labor
| John D. Rockefeller |
|---|
John D. Rockefeller in 1885
|
| Born | John Davison Rockefeller
July 8, 1839
Richford, New York, U.S. |
|---|
| Died | May 23, 1937 (aged 97)
The Casements
Ormond Beach, Florida, U.S. |
|---|
| Burial place | Lake View Cemetery, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.  41.511°N 81.591°W |
|---|
| Occupation | Oil industry business magnateand philanthropist |
|---|
| Known for | Founding and leading the Standard Oil Company
|
|---|
| Net worth | US$400 billion (in 2017 dollars; inflation-adjusted) in 1913,[a]according to Forbes[1][2]
(1.5% to 2% of the United States economy; or approximately 1/65th to 1/50th of its GDP)[b] |
|---|
| Political party | Republican |
|---|
| Spouse(s) | Laura Celestia Spelman
(m. 1864–1915; her death) |
|---|
| Children | Elizabeth, Alice, Alta, Edith, and John Jr. |
|---|
| Parent(s) |
|
|---|
| Relatives | Rockefeller family |
|---|
And what about Montsenior Rockefeller in New York City and his "Oil Business"? People have often referred to him as "Wreck a Fella." His business practices were often condemned as "ruthless" and destructive - even sometimes violent. When analyzing history, words like "apologist" among others come up pretty easily. This is especially true in the USA, as human rights atrocities are the only things that have been reported for almost 4 decades. No matter what it is - there are monsters out their, and they want to destroy us.
Was John D. Rockefeller, cold, ruthless and evil? Most people who have studied American History know that his Standard Oil was one of the greatest businesses ever built. It was eventually broken by the U.S. Government into smaller chunks like what is today called "Texaco Corporation" and "Exxon Corporation." Standard Oi was the world's first "Oil Company." It was founded in the years after the Civil War, and John D. Rockefeller had been in the Union Army during the Civil War. He knew how bad blood shed was, and that it needed to be stopped.
We know that John D. Rockefeller didn't always pay his workers so much. Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" ending slavery didn't exactly end it - and some might argue it had the backwards effect of forcing people to Unionize and get lower wages than before. It did, however, guarantee progress as thinks like "The Automobile Industry" were literally invented for the first time on planet earth - right there in Michigan and New York. Without Mr. Rockefeller's Oil, none of the machines of the Industrial Revolution would have ever functioned.
We know Mr. Rockefeller was tremendously successful, and this is made obvious by the legacy that he left. Before his company Standard Oil was formed, there had never been and oil refining business anywhere in the world! After he had lived his life - a full and long one - Gasoline powered everything from automobiles (which had also never been built in the world) to airplane engines. This was success.
The questions that anybody attempting Philosophy, History, or Law have to ask are: "Did John D. Rockefeller achieve his goals through treachery, evil, deceit and even murder?" Was Mr. Rockefeller some kind of "Genocidal Butcher" - like the leaders of the U.S. Army in the 1980's and 1990's? Well, probably not. People who worked for him would sometimes strike. People who worked for the National Guard sometimes fire on striking-workers and striking-protesters. If the U.S. National Guard kills a protester - which did happend - does that make Mr. Rockefeller a murderer? If Mr. Rockefeller was at home asleep in his bed when a scab is shot by a soldier, does that mean he is himself responsible for that death.
What means are justified by what ends? A lot of turns into conversations about
- Who?
- What?
- When?
- Where?
- How Much?
- Why?
- How Often?
- 10 people dead last week? Last Year? In a Decade?
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Nobody will know how many "massacres" occurred in the years 1870 - 1940 - which are precisely the years of Mont-senior Rockefeller's Oil Business - and are precisely the years between the Civil War and the start of World War II. Did the end justify the means? Well, mostly people say that "honesty is the best policy." Archives of the New York Times are available during these years. Remember, when leading large organizations, everything really *is* your fault - and an executive was somewhat obligated to take charge on mistakes that he had nothing to do with. So just because leaders like Rockefeller were often condemned in newspapers when a strike erupted - didn't exactly mean they were directly responsible errors of judgement, rather, they had to take responsibility and blame.
Public Wikipedia Articles:
The Prince, (a book by author)
Niccolò Machiavelli,
Renaissance,
Machiavellianism,
Realpoltik,
Old Roman Empire,
House of Medici
This was the first guy to write a "dictator" type of book. It has been promoted and condemned throughout human history. Read the book "The Prince" if you like, it might help a lot. It was written in the fifteenth century, in or around the heart of the Old Roman Empire. The Roman Cesar once ruled the entire Mediterranean from the City of Rome. The Mediterranean was once called "a Roman Lake." In the fifteenth century, the words "The de Medici Princes" - a name that probably borrows from words "The Mediterranean" - vied for power over the Italian Peninsula in a way somewhat reminiscent of the battles of walking across the Rubicon by representatives from all around the Mediterranean by elected officials of the Roman Senate. The words "Italian Renaissance" literally means "rebirth" and was about the principles of the Old Roman Empire being reborn in then-modern-day-Italy. What were once senators in the Republic were now just being called "de Medici." Maybe once 2,000 years ago when Julius Cesar ruled, the word "Meditarranean" might have been the word for Empire.
In any case, what did it mean to "Cross the Rubicon?" What was it like in the age of Jesus Christ or Julius Cesar? We know that many leaders "sacked Rome" - rebels from Carthage marched on war elephants from North Africa all the way to the City of Rome just to fight for their rights and their values and their place in the Empire. In the art or the act of "fighting back" to oppression or repression or tyranny against "The Cesar's" of Rome - was "dirty war" or an "anything goes" type of mentality allowed? Was it common? Was it the norm or prevalent? How could any civilization of people "flourish" if phenomenon such as "dirty war" (underhanded, evil tactics) existed? If the Roman Emperors really did things like "torture," "crucifixion" or more generally "feeding people to the lions" (for instance) why would anybody have ever thought of Roman Civilization as a "great thing?"
All Mr. Lorenzo de Medici really states (or re-states to be exact) are stories similar to that of "The Achilles Tendon" and the battles of Achilles. The Achiles Tendon is the nerve fiber that connects the foot to the leg. When this tendon was cut by a Roman Centurion, the "Marathon Runner" could no longer run marathons, and a rebel soldier could no longer do battle. Was dirty war common in the "Age of Rome?" In any case, Niccolo Machiavelli wasn't restating anything particularly new, but rather bringing the trials and tribulations of Roman Persecution - literally the story of Jesus Christ.
When "Julius Cesar" (or whatever) tortured or crucified or proverbially "fed Jesus Christ to the lions" - why or how did the Roman Empire continue to exist? Would not people be up in arms demanding Cesar face justice from "Pontious Pilate" (The Roman Police Office) - just like Jesus had been forced to face?
| Malcolm X |
|---|
Malcolm X in March 1964
|
| Born | Malcolm Little
May 19, 1925
Omaha, Nebraska |
|---|
| Died | February 21, 1965 (aged 39)
Manhattan, New York |
|---|
| Cause of death | Assassination (multiple gunshots) |
|---|
| Resting place | Ferncliff Cemetery |
|---|
| Other names |
- el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz
- (الحاجّ مالك الشباز)
|
|---|
| Occupation | Minister, activist |
|---|
| Organization |
|
|---|
| Movement |
|
|---|
| Spouse(s) | Betty Shabazz (m. 1958) |
|---|
| Children |
|
|---|
| Parent(s) |
|
|---|
| Signature |
|---|
 |
One of Malcom X's favorite lines was "By any means necessary should black power be achieved." Is it right for a leader to try to "overcome hardship" by "hurting other people." Well, why were blacks in the USA so often portrayed as victims of persecution in the 1950's and 1960's. I have always thought that a lot of what occured in the 1960's that made MLK, RFK and other "civil rights people" fight so hard was the tremendous amounts of violence that had America had been pursuing since the wane of power of the "industrial revolution."
In 1931, the City of New York completed the erection of the Empire State Building. In that year, thousands of construction workers worked cranes, rock quarry's and all kinds of heavy machinery and iron works to do the job properly. The building is still there today, and was the tallest structure ever built in the world, up to that point in time. It was taller than the Eifell Tower - which of course wasn't a building at all. Why were "black power movements" niether popular, nor prevalent during this time period? Why were there no "black race riots" in the 1920's or 1930's?
Mostly, in those days, white people in the Tri-State area went to work. Even more importantly, when they went to work, they didn't often get to put on a suit, a tie, and walk around smoking cigars and sipping brandy all day. Construction workers did everything from dig in giant sulfur mine pits in the ground - only to come home smelling like a blast furnace - to use cranes to lift heavy cinder blocks up 50, 60 and eventually 70 stories to build these skyscrapers. In every sense of the word - huge swaths of the employed population were slaves. They were white slaves who spend their whole lives working for peanuts and can and did protest for higher wages. They protested for higher wages so often that entire Labor Organizations formed so that employed New Yorker's would get the money that they would need to live the good lives that everybody wanted.
All of this changed in the years after the second world war. Yes, the citizenry wasn't always paid so well, but yes they had rights, they were safe, and they whatever money they received it was usually enough to live. During this period, sometimes called "The Jim Crow Era" - although blacks participated less in society - they also weren't in sulfur mines digging holes for Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Carnegie, or on 14 shifts of the assembly line at Mr. Ford's Company (Ford Motor Company). What percentage of blacks were allowed or encouraged to work for John D. Rockefeller in his oil fields? I don't know, there are "lies" and their are "damn lies," and there are also "statistics." (Famous quote from the Revolutionary War) We will never know "percentages" or "statistics" like that.
The race riots of the 1960's started because "Mr. Rockefeller," "Mr. Carnegie," and "Mr. Morgan" were no longer industrialists keeping white workers digging holes in the ground - coming home to the wife smelling like a blast furnace inside of a sulfur mine. All of a sudden military authority, shining knights wearing bronze and brass had seemed to seize power.
When Malcolm X said "Black People need to take power by any means necessary" did he do the right thing? How far were they willing to go? Blacks had been in the US for decades, if not centuries. Why here? Why now? Well, as well know, World War II was the beginning of a "Militarized Government" an inchoate "Police State" just beginning to form. Andrew Carnegie telling white people to melt more Iron in the Iron Mills had given way to soldiers barking orders to American Citizens both at work at in the streets.
Black people in partially-segregated cities had seen the rug pulled out from under-neath them. It was really that simple. If you watch "Amos & Andy" (and old 1950's TV Show) - blacks lazily sitting around sipping ice-T by the banyan tree making jokes had given way to power struggles. Though the days of the "Jim Crow Segregation" did keep people apart - they weren't exactly "unfair." What race of people (Black or otherwise) would want to fight for coal mining, oil rigging, blast furnace jobs or and 14-hour-a-day shifts at the automobile plants courtesy of Mr. Rockefeller or Mr. Carnegie? Not that many.
In the 1960's, push and turned into shove. The USMC was in, industrialists were out, and many blacks were looking at it like this was "The Fight of their Life." How bad was the persecution? Well, it wasn't fair, that's for sure. I mean, don't forget, the millions of whites that had just been killed in Europe, but yeah, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because people in Europe died, didn't mean persecuting blacks in U.S. Cities was alright either. They had no choice, I guess.
| Abraham Lincoln |
|---|
President Lincoln in November 1863
|
|
| 16th President of the United States |
|---|
In office
March 4, 1861 – April 15, 1865 |
| Vice President | Hannibal Hamlin
(1861–65)
Andrew Johnson
(1865) |
|---|
| Preceded by | James Buchanan |
|---|
| Succeeded by | Andrew Johnson |
|---|
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Illinois's 7th district |
|---|
In office
March 4, 1847 – March 3, 1849 |
| Preceded by | John Henry |
|---|
| Succeeded by | Thomas L. Harris |
|---|
Member of the
Illinois House of Representatives |
|---|
In office
1834–1842 |
| Personal details |
|---|
| Born | February 12, 1809
Sinking Spring Farm,
near Hodgenville, Kentucky, U.S. |
|---|
| Died | April 15, 1865 (aged 56)
Petersen House,
Washington, D.C., U.S. |
|---|
| Cause of death | Assassination |
|---|
| Resting place | Lincoln Tomb, Oak Ridge Cemetery,
Springfield, Illinois, U.S. |
|---|
| Political party | Whig (1834–54)
Republican (1854–64) |
|---|
Other political
affiliations | National Union (1864–65) |
|---|
| Height | 6 ft 4 in (193 cm)[1] |
|---|
| Spouse(s) | Mary Todd (m. 1842) |
|---|
| Children | Robert Lincoln
Edward Lincoln
Willie Lincoln
Tad Lincoln |
|---|
| Parents | Thomas Lincoln
Nancy Hanks |
|---|
| Profession | Lawyer, politician |
|---|
| Signature |  |
|---|
| Military service |
|---|
| Nickname(s) | Honest Abe |
|---|
| Allegiance |
 United States
|
|---|
| Service/branch | Illinois Militia |
|---|
| Years of service | 3 months
(April 21, 1832 – July 10, 1832) |
|---|
| Rank |
|
|---|
| Battles/wars | Black Hawk War |
|---|
This is a famous documented spiritual "No More Auction Block" sung about the Civil War in the U.S. Lyrics to the song are written here. Type the name of the song on YouTube.com to hear it.
No more auction block for me
No more, no more
No more auction block for me
Many thousands gone
(My Note: Lincoln & Grant did indeed "fight for freedom" - and in wars people die)
No more driver's lash for me
No more, no more
No more driver's lash for me
Many thousands gone
(My Note: Lincoln did, in fact, kill tens of thousands of soldiers to preserve the Union)
No more whip lash for me
No more, no more
No more pine assault for me
Many thousands gone
(My Note: Lincoln "fought for freedom" - he did! read his emancipation proclamation!)
No more auction block for me
No more, no more
No more auction block for me
Many thousands gone.
(When General William Tecumseh Sherman marched through the south at the end of the War, thousands of Southern's Homes were destroyed and Southerners killed)
Did the end justify the means? They have always called President Lincoln "Honest Abe Lincoln," which means, being an honest political leader ought to be a requirement before you preaching on about providing "freedom" to your population and your citizens. In the day of Niccolò Machiavelli, there wasn't a lot of "televised public broadcasting," radio, or TV for a Prince of the Medici families of Italy to lie to the Italian People. Though one tenet of the book "The Prince" by Mr. Machiavelli was that lying to achieve power is actually good, one thing that ought to be 100% clear in everybody's mind is as such: Lying using technological means that never existed in the human experience until the 20th century like internet, TV, radio and mass produced magazines are not the marks of a competent, just or honorable political leader - no matter what organization he is heading.
"I cannot tell a lie" is what has been said about Abe Lincoln as thousands of Confederate Soldiers were killed during the war to preserve the Union. Since Abraham Lincoln was a man of strong principles, and Robert E. Lee was much less so - one might infer that the morale he imbued his soldiers with are why the Union won the war. It also ought to be an insight into the spectacular "rise of the USA" that occurred in the years 1870 - 1940. In the days after the civil war, people's rights were tremendously respected. Because of Lincoln's victory over Mr. Lee, and because freedom and liberty were the principals about which President Lincoln spoke during the war, people formed many organizations that were widely respected by society such as "The Knights of Labor" and "The AFL/CIO."
Did the end justify the means? Well, many thousand gone... But here are the "before" and "after" photos:
Left: New York City around the time of the Civil War in 1865. It had farm land, cows pastures, and lots of one story buildings.
Right: New York City in 1940 - after a period of almost 80 years of peace, growth, progress and stability.
Honesty was the best policy. Tens of thousands were killed in the Civil War, but opposition to slavery and sound government were promoted.
