At this moment in time, the United States are by far the most powerful economic entity in the history of the world. The productive processes and material energies of our nation affect our planet in ways that were completely unimaginable in ancient history. Some of our accomplishments would have been incomprehensible less than twenty years ago, but soon enough, even these wonders will be obsolete. America's resources have allowed us to become the most dominate military force in the modern world. Our greatest threat, the Soviet Union, met its end in what some may see to be nothing more than a blink of an eye in humanity’s past; yet, our society has quickly transformed since then.
Nevertheless, despite the riches of our country, and our continually larger amount of weaponry, we are not a satisfied people by any means. Our creations have become much larger and more beautiful than ever before, but a large number of us are employed in endeavors that are not enjoyed a great deal, while the hours we spend in our jobs remain fairly constant. The victory of the Cold War literally occurred in a different age of humanity, but a great amount of fear and insecurity remains in our hearts, even though our newest fears are not directed towards forces nearly as great and realized as the Stalinist armies of our past. Despite our tools, we perpetually maintain enormous levels of debt in order to raise our standard of living, and vast amounts of government spending only maintain foolish endeavors of violence that are not aiding us in our sense of national welfare.
For even if our quests towards instant gratification and serenity were to accomplish our shallow goals, nearly every major victory or possession we seek to acquire is fleeting compared to more meaningful methods often cast aside in ignorance. Indeed, our materialistic and militaristic threats are closely related: mindless and irrational fear is the main reason we are full of hopelessness as a country; no other people are allowed the ability to solve their problems as easily as us. When one realizes just how wealthy the United States are compared to all other dominions, and how even our poorest citizens appear when measured against most of the middle class of the world, they shall see why the vast majority of our policies and lifestyles are truly unnecessary.
Our country should be in a position whereby our reign as the greatest nation among mankind remains unquestionable. Yet, our cup should be overflowing so rapidly that our people would freely give unto others what we ourselves enjoy, even without ruining the entire planet and our bodies through excessive waste and lack of care towards the future. Technology should be advanced enough to accommodate most of the needs of the world’s people in regards to housing, vehicles, computers, and electricity. It is said by some that what should be is, “unfortunately,” not necessarily what is; instead, they proclaim these simple statements to be hardly anything more than idealistic clichés; however, these disturbing declarations are just as prone to being labeled realistic taboos.
Fortune is not the main problem of the United States.
If anything, fortune has been on our side for decades—if not centuries.
Our great oceanic boundary with Europe protected us from many major conflicts in our nation’s infancy, and when we became more involved in the trials of the Old World, we were impacted far less negatively than others: even the War of 1812 was rather easy for the United States; the enormous power of the French against the British was staggering compared to any amount our people could have mustered singularly. Of course, to be frank on the matter, the United States would probably not exist in the first place if it were not for the historical British and French rivalry.
Although the Civil War severely weakened our country, this later conflict was not mere misfortunate, as we destroyed ourselves almost solely of our own volition.
Europe decimated themselves for years before we joined World War One—the United States hardly became involved in the conflict in comparison to the other major nations of the time.
And yet, the Europeans were not finished yet: World War Two finally ushered our nation’s availability and utilization of resources ahead of all others, for although America fought well in this conflict, once again, our country was late to join the confrontation; we also faced an Axis power that contained far fewer people and land than our alliance. As a result of this enormous confrontation in particular, many of the foreign industries and finances of the planet were in ruins only two generations ago: warfare caused Europe, Asia, and the Soviet Union much more suffering than it did the United States of the 20th century.
Although one could state that our non-interventionist policies were not mere luck, not only throughout the beginning of our nation’s foundations, but even within the last century (to some extent), as many Americans were not only aware, but adamant towards not financing or joining unnecessary conflicts—this would be a narrow view of history. It is easy for a nation to be convinced of neutrality when they are relatively weak; it is quite another matter to hold a people back when they are fully capable of obliterating others—even when such aims are illusions of the greater reality.
The United States did, after all, exterminate countless Native Americans in our early years. We dishonorably conquered a great amount of Mexican territory in the 19th century. And the Maine was vivid in our minds when island territories became a part of our violent goals towards further expansion.
And yet, we have not even begun to discuss the luck of modern America.
The Korean War is the last major United States’ conflict that produced benefits that are arguably worth their cost—that is to say, of course, when one does not think very deeply on the matter, but merely assumes historical propaganda to be the truth. For the Korean conflict should have proved to us the deeper cost of underestimating an enemy, and the potential disaster such a war could create among the greater world powers: when we secretly waged war with the Chinese, it became evident to us that conventional forces would not be enough to force another unconditional Asian surrender, despite the enemy’s relative technological inferiority; 110,000 dead Chinese forces (U.S. estimates are far higher) were not enough to end their support of North Korea. It is no wonder, therefore, that General MacArthur believed the methods of Hiroshima may have been necessarily in order to have “won” the battle—especially since we did not wish to formally declare the conflict to be far larger than what the American public assumed. A nuclear proposition was soon presented, and a Secretary of Defense was dismissed as a potential liability: this was the first time WWIII reared its ugly head on our doorsteps, and the United States were lucky to escape with our heads on our shoulders.
While it could be claimed that we were wise in backing away from any further militaristic escalation in North Korea, as we soon shifted towards a more defensive strategy than before, it is difficult to say this with any finality, for despite the potential hazards of this particular war, and the actual destruction that took place, our even more powerful nation would risk similar odds in Vietnam years later.
One would think that the war in Vietnam would have severely bothered our leaders, as the prospect of worldwide nuclear confrontation was even greater than it had been during the Korean conflict—given the singular fact that the world had created far more nuclear devices by the time the later war would begin—nevertheless, our Department of Defense did not seem to think this might have been a problem. For although our military commanders may have been correct in predicting the Vietnam War would not lead the United States into WWIII (we are still feeling the Vietnam War’s repercussions to this day), our generals surely did not understand nearly as much as they originally claimed.
Indeed, when one realizes that the United States began forming an alliance with China’s Mao Zedong two years before the official war in Vietnam ended—despite the fact that this dictator was responsible for the largest instance of genocide in human history—one may come to believe that “Communism” was never a specific problem: the United States did not end our half of the Cold War in 1971.
What was ever wrong with the Communism of the Soviets versus that of the Chinese, much less that of the Cubans?
Is not the problem of “Communism” the result of the fact that it is an oppressive system of government run by murderous dictators—inasmuch that it is nearly the same as Nazism, despite Stalin’s and Hitler’s hatred of one another during WWII?
Some may say that the United States unofficially gave up fighting dictatorships through massive warfare after years of failed attempts in Vietnamese jungles, and that we began to adopt a policy of peaceful diplomacy and economic strategy soon afterward, but this is difficult to believe (if not obvious as a result of recent affairs, which shall be discussed in detail momentarily), even though it is similar to the philosophy this book shall argue for; it is even difficult to assume that the United States ever particularly cared about spreading Democracy throughout the region of Vietnam from the start of the war, let alone from the point whereby it became apparent our plans were crumbling: this is the truth; even if we believe “Democracy” is nothing more than the rule of a population’s majority through balloting, South Vietnam was never as thus—from the end of French military occupation, to the beginning of such by American forces. For if simple Democratic political rule was the reason for the War in Vietnam, there would have been no need for any battle whatsoever: the majority of the population of South Vietnam was pro-Communist from the start, and remained as such after the United States attempted to transport massive groups to the region; the United States favored a pro-Catholic dictatorship, and by this, I would not be so bold as to specify the name of Kennedy, but that of Diem.
Despite our enormous amount of technology and monetary power, we not only lost the war in Vietnam, but more importantly, we never truly maintained the slightest militaristic edge on that which was to become modern Russia; if we did, any meaningful tactical advantage we held lasted only a few years after the end of WWII. We surely spent more on our weaponry than the “Communists” could afford, but for all practical purposes, we were beyond blessed in our narrow escapes of complete and utter nuclear devastation multiple times: the Cuban missile crisis is one notable example of this, as are other instances not nearly as well known among our general population.
For example, Stanislav Petrov was instrumental in failing to flame the fears of the Soviets when he ignored what appeared to be multiple nuclear missiles approaching his homeland in 1983. He was later removed of his command, despite having acted in accordance with the ultimate purpose of defense, but to this day, his name is hardly of any historical importance to the masses of the world. Yet, this is not all that has occurred to the vast majority of the United States’ citizenry unknowingly—some potential turning points towards apocalypse have continued to occur despite the Cold War’s “end.”
As recently as 1995, a Norwegian space launch was mistakenly identified as a possible nuclear attack on Russian soil, and Boris Yeltsin was prepared to initiate the launch of Russia’s missiles, despite the fact that Norway had adequately notified the world of good intentions beforehand.
These nuclear close calls were mere distortions on the behalf of a “foe,” but they held very real possibilities for incalculable destruction; no matter what we may tell ourselves, the fears on the behalf of our “enemy” could have been prevented, somewhat, if our own leaders were more skilled in diplomacy.
In light of the fact that the United States fully supported a South Vietnamese dictatorship in order for our “greater good” to occur (which it did not anyhow), is it so strange to believe that other nations feel their dictatorships are not necessarily bad, so long as they are “lesser evils?”
The occurrences of the Yalta Conference are a testament of the United States and Great Britain having formed an agreement with Stalin, which created the buffer zones (one of which still exists) in the two most strategically important minor nations of the Asian continent (those which had easy access to the seas of the Chinese)—these were the central focal points of the wars between the Koreans and the Vietnamese. In consideration of these divisions, the Soviet Union agreed to declare war on Japan near the end of WWII. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the Koreans and the Vietnamese wished to reunite with one another, as they did not decide to be divided—nor should it be a shock to the reader that the Communists refused to give up their satellite states during our “retaliatory” strikes.
To be fair, of course, the United States were much more justified in aiding South Korea defensively than we were in our “assistance” to South Vietnam—it was simply not worth the financial cost or the lives of American soldiers to even defend South Korea militaristically in the short-run, as we could have saved them, along with many more nations, through peacefully and economically sound methods in the long-run, although merely pushing the North Koreans to their original borders would have been a much wiser course of action than our initial attempt to take advantage of the situation.
It is easy to fear aggressive nations, but the United States could have used the enormous human and financial resources we expended fighting wars in Asia alone in order to have helped Mexico and many other Central American nations to have peacefully developed at enormously faster rates, which would have eventually resulted in an increased amount of trade among our peoples. The Soviet Union would have eventually found themselves stretched too thin at an even faster rate than before, for while our new allies’ economies would have been much stronger than the Soviets’, our friends would have also been much more likely to have looked upon us as benefactors rather than tyrants. It is not cost-effective in the slightest to exploit nations in the long-run.
For although it is generally understood by the majority of our people that we would not blindly attack other nations in acts of tyranny, our enemies, and even some of our closest friends, are not as certain, especially in modern days. Indeed, recently, it seems that even our popular majority is not extremely confident in our self-righteousness either, which is surely good, although we still barely realize how many mistakes we have made throughout the eons of time.
As the strongest nation in the contemporary world, we should be an older sibling unto others—our trustworthiness and reputation must be solid. Given enough time, a great deal of fortune will not guarantee our survival; eventually, even our minor mistakes shall cost us dearly.
When one understands the world deeply, it is easy to see that our country’s greatest challenges are largely matters of willpower and wisdom; there has been little reason for us to subject ourselves and the rest of the world to errant paranoia and tyranny.
It would be a falsehood to assert that many of our citizens have not performed brilliant and grueling work throughout the years, and one may even be wrong to declare that some of our worst leaders have meant to be “evil;” however, as some have said, hell is paved with good intentions, despite naive fools being more commendable than knowledgeable hypocrites.
In order to understand how much we lack, one must realize we are subject to an infinite amount of unknown forces, but even according to what we can possess understanding of, it is still difficult to define what it means to be a great country to begin with, even though our lands hold far more opportunity than we may realize—in more ways than one.
Humans often take important dimensions of life for granted: Christ’s teachings were not simply ignored in His day, as many were willing to exchange Him for a murderer; scientists often find they are not given remarkable paychecks for their ideas, even though prosperous businesses enormously rely upon such thinkers; Martin Luther King’s forces faced down armies without firing physical weapons. In all of these instances, greatness exists beyond the material world alone; instead, it is mainly the result of compassion, intelligence, and courage.
Ultimately, life consists of adventurous, social, intellectual, and material planes, as well as an all-encompassing realm of belief. Without any of these aspects of reality taken into consideration, a people will crumble. Too often, humans wish to make matters basic decisions between black and white, and even merely white and white if it can be helped, but this is not the way the Universe works: at times, “productivity” can result in further oppression and misery, as evidenced by the creation of the cotton gin; when people fail to be courageous and independent, they quickly fall into a mob mentality of chaos whereby they become the sinister evils they fear, as illustrated by the rise of the Nazis; similarly to the last point, intelligence alone will only make an evil nation more powerful temporarily when compassion is absent; the “material” world is meaningless if we do not understand it.
The key to power is not solely within physical manifestations, and it is certainly not according to the number of people that already act or feel in a certain manner; yet, these two ideas are the primary reasons for our lives as modern Americans. The United States are a very powerful country in general, and our particular strengths allow for us to slightly compensate for our infirmities, inasmuch that our weaknesses may appear to be greater than other nations’ relative strengths, but we are surely more materially oriented than we are socially, adventurously, and even intellectually. Our core beliefs are often unflinching, but they are simultaneously hardly existent and outright fallacious; in order to attempt to unwind our web of deceit, it is difficult to appear consistent in one’s reasoning, as we have twisted the most ordinary of words so greatly they are virtually useless without an explanation.
To become far more successful than we already have, not only as a collective polity, but in a relatively more important way, as singular human beings, we must be willing to put forth an enormous amount of effort in areas our general population has increasingly ignored during the past few decades. However, in reality, there is not a great difference between an individual and their society: one’s “self” is simply a realm easier to control in the immediate sense.
The United States ourselves are a part of the larger world, and although our media and politicians often speak of the “great deal of money” we contribute towards certain International efforts, this is a false pride, for we have far more to give. This is not to say that we should give all that we own unto others, but we give so little it is ludicrous. Once more, however, money alone does not necessarily solve problems to begin with, and in truth, our donations thus far have hardly been reconciliations for damages we helped cause in the first place, for we more often than not merely use massive amounts of desperate people for our machinations and say such things are “mutually beneficial.”
In recent times, United States’ giving has only risen 1/3 of a percent for every 1 percent increase in our major stock indices: this means our charity is shrinking in proportion to our gains in owner’s equity, while our total donations are worth a measly 1.7% of our gross domestic product (gross domestic product, or GDP, is the total market value of the goods and services a nation produces annually), despite the fact that our GDP is worth massively more than that of dozens of poor countries combined. And although our official estimates of “charity” are well above other industrialized nations, including Britain, and especially France—both of these nations are forced to give even more of their incomes through taxes in order to pay for domestic matters of social importance, such as universal health care, which our statisticians list as being “charitable” when they are accomplished by religion rather than the duty of law, despite the fact that Europe generates less annual income per capita than the United States to begin with. After all, it is not as if secularism should be automatically associated with nihilism, even though France and Britain are not godless nations to begin with, even though atheism itself is not necessarily an embrace of complete meaningless in the Universe so much as it is a rejection of a certain “social and political mode of thought,” which is not even necessarily contrary to that which is expressed herein, despite the fact that I would not even qualify this work as being agnostic—for those that care (a deep Christian would hardly allow the name of “God” to torture them as a puppet).
One of our greatest efforts of giving in recent times, the Tsunami relief effort, was hardly a price to pay for the cheap productions of goods and services and the corresponding higher stock dividends we have received as a result of the affected region’s disadvantages throughout the past two decades. There is little doubt Americans have benefited greatly from the second world’s massive labor force—this is especially true of the richest among us. And yet, even our poorer consumers have found good use of the enormous market of foreign labor in the form of lower prices at the retail end of the bargain, although some ordinary American workers still ignorantly complain when poor Asians “steal” our boring jobs in positions such as those within telephone call centers, despite the fact that these functions did not likely pay much more than our minimum wage when such jobs were in our nation, even though our minimum wage itself is still a far higher sum than the “good” wages other people enjoy Internationally—even on the basis of purchasing power parity (PPP is a more accurate way of measuring how many goods and services a foreigner can buy with a currency than would be found through the use of immediate market exchange rates).
A person in India would be well above their nation’s median income bracket if they made only a dollar an hour; therefore, even the lowest paying American job sent to the country results in an Indian “donating” a large part of their productions back to people in the United States, especially if there are not large transportation costs involved and/or other related issues. But certainly, the net effect of the trade benefits to America from Indian labor alone over the years has been enormous and would dwarf the amount that was given back to Southeast Asia when they were in “dire circumstances.” In fact, compared to the standards of the United States, Southeast Asia is always filled with tragedy: the mass media simply found a rare event that would make for better ratings (satisfied demand) on television than other issues, the latter of which shall be discussed later in this text, even though there is a possibility they may bore the ordinary reader so much this work will not sell very well, which is why I have felt a need to glamorize this manuscript somewhat through an unique style as best as possible, although it will still more than likely end up being about as exciting as artificial sweetener.
It is unimpressive, however, that U.S. workers fail to recognize our unemployment statistic has not greatly fluctuated during the past two decades (it has actually dropped), even though we seem to have become increasingly angered over our perceptions of foreign labor “robbers.”
There are two major reasons for the fall in local unemployment, and outsourcing is not one of them: firstly, statistical numbers of “importance” are influenced somewhat through fiscal and monetary policy; secondly, the technical definition of unemployment itself is subject to change.
The prison system is one somewhat minor, but easy example of the foremost type of statistical control, as the United States have incessantly incarcerated an ever larger proportion of our citizenry since the 1980s. Since the War on Drugs began, nearly two million more prisoners are not included in governmental definitions of the “labor force,” although many dealers also make more money than they would have in the drug trade as a result of the higher prices they may charge due to the resulting shortages; some of the latter people are not counted as being a part of the labor force either, although most, ironically, would still do better to have a real job—drugs are simply that rampant and available in our society. Furthermore, we no longer count workers as being unemployed when their purpose is to construct and maintain facilities of confinement. We also do not concern ourselves with those whom are paid in order to capture criminals in the first place, such as those within local police forces, the FBI, the DEA, etc. In the extreme, we could completely eliminate unemployment if we become a fully institutionalized society of cops and robbers. But while the containment method is partially the reason unemployment has been decreasing as a percentage of the labor force, as the amount of people involved are now more than an entire percent of our population, if not more, which is a rather large amount from a modern American economist’s perspective, it is not the main cause, as fiscal policy is generally aimed towards different matters, especially on the federal level; it is, however, interesting that this issue alone is ignored more than outsourcing when one considers it has a much more drastic affect on our economy, as entire lives are being spent in cells instead of in physical freedom, whereas outsourced jobs will almost certainly result in the creation of different domestically needed tasks. Yet, this has all been a side-note.
We were speaking on fiscal policy specifically, and much larger areas of governmental intervention, which are more important in keeping important statistical numbers steady, shall be touched upon later in more detail. Monetary policy will also be discussed somewhat in-depth, which is arguably even more important than the direct affairs of government. Outsourcing and drug issues are intriguing and simple views of reality, but they are relatively small issues nonetheless.
Things are not always what they seem.
In the end, the confidence of a people is what keeps their economy afloat, which is the realm of belief, and our government and Federal Reserve in particular may be two means to this end. It is certain that a great number of our current jobs are, after all, a matter of fantasy, as they are now “service-oriented,” and therefore, infinite in their potential creation: we can always add more detail to our sets and costumes on the stage of life if our labor force grows “too large.” It is no coincidence that the entertainment industry erupted during the Great Depression. Even the fast food industry could become gourmet in order that unemployment may be lowered in the future. We have lived for many years under the assumption that we may merely print fiat money in order to create jobs, after all, so it is not a leap of faith to believe we should never be worried about work being in short supply if we directly imagine jobs into existence.
We often forget how much of our reality is determined by social opinion!
We do not often question our lifestyles; we simply enjoy them. Aesthetics have become such intrinsic parts of our existence that we hardly even notice most artwork today. Humanity has been as thus for quite some time, to a certain extent, even unto the point whereby we began to value rapturous rocks over genuine grain, but we have become far more imaginative in modern times.
Our landscaping is meticulously cared for today; yet, we also continue to worry about how Mexican immigrants in particular “steal” jobs in our country, no less—surely, some of us may even think outsourcing is better than thus! But perhaps we should not stereotype those that are south of our borders as being mere gardeners and manual laborers, as some may take offense to such connotations; then again, it is not as if there is anything wrong with such types of employment. Stones can be cut into a million different pieces in order that our fountains can acquire a certain texture to their façade of being, and our marble floors could always be polished to a greater degree.
What need is there for the hatred and dismissal of such types of artisans?
We surely appreciate their productions.
The truth is that even general foreign labor “competition” does not affect our unemployment figure much. We simply find it easier to blame new labor, or more generally, new productivity, as being the reason for our unhappiness, because people do not enjoy having to take responsibility for their own life, much less the lives of others: it is far easier to create scapegoats for one’s problems than it is to examine one’s self in order that one may make the world a better place for as many people as possible.
If we are consistent in our judgments, we shall find that machines are easily the major modern factor responsible for the elimination of inefficient jobs—especially in productive areas not as inclined to the realm of the imagination, as certain functions are relatively more material: modern agriculture is surely not accomplished by a great amount of labor compared to that which was needed in humanity’s past, and even then, we could be far more effective in this sector, as shall be discussed later on (the use of the bull likely caused great discontent among certain farm hands whose labor it replaced upon its introduction in ancient times).
And if we count a group of people as being “competitors” merely because they have entered the United States labor force—we should not ignore the massive entrance of the female sex into the working environment, as this incredibly large number of individuals have already drastically challenged many economic models related to unemployment and wage setting. The statistical inclusion of a greater number of our population’s women has greatly enhanced our nation’s productivity, although the arguments against their employment have somewhat died down as time has moved on, even though United States females are relatively educated, and therefore, “compete” in both unskilled and skilled positions, while the main argument against illegal immigrants in particular is still aimed towards how the latter people “negatively” affect our more ignorant citizens endeavoring in relatively uncomplicated jobs, which is also said to be a major reason for the ever-increasing gaps in measurements of wealth.
For if there can be an argument against the increased amount of unskilled labor “competition” in the world, it may be that it results in the chasm of wealth continuing to soar, but it does not seem many of us care about this issue specifically; after all, few of us even remotely notice how insanely unequal such figures have become. Some of us may be shocked, but recent studies by International economists indicate that 1% of the world’s population controls 40% of the wealth, and that 10% of the world’s population controls 85% of the wealth, whereas the bottom 50% of the world’s population only controls 1% of the wealth. And yet, before we say that this is a conspiracy theory of the rich, many Americans must realize we are part of the elite class of the world, especially if we are of so much as the middle class of our country, for even a poor American may appear to be quite rich compared to one that is “wealthy” in certain parts of the world. Some of us make hundreds of times more than other human beings, and we hardly even consider the matter—we may even think of ourselves as being “powerless individuals.” Far from the reason for this polarization of the world’s wealth being the result of the creation of too many jobs, it is rather easy to see that this class antagonism is in large part the result of the “lower” classes of the world’s upper-class being greedy and untrusting of one another, and even those that are more poor than themselves, even unto the point whereby they are unable to unite, much less to aid one another against the powers that are even greater than them. Instead of asking what we can do to help others, we often merely complain and beg about how we should be in an even higher position.
Of course, we do worry about “aiding” the world through warfare, but at the very least, we could concern ourselves with problems that are truly important to us. We aren’t even great at being self-interested a good majority of the time, which is why, perhaps, Plato assumed “evil” people do not fully understand the consequences of their actions—ignorance is simply ignorance. For if we had spent as much time worrying about our country’s water infrastructure as we have concerned ourselves with the fortress being planned across Mexico, our levees would have likely been repaired well before they broke and flooded the City of New Orleans, and perhaps then we could have lowered the gap in the world’s wealth by giving to dirt poor countries that truly need such generosity.
We are so stuck in our lives of passivity that we fail to realize we are a snobbish nation of cowardly aristocrats. Some may say that we are an exciting nation, and that we love competition, as demonstrated by our embrace of professional sports and various action films, but even this claim is a proof of the argument for the opposite—our love for trivial matters such as movies and rubber balls is an escape from much deeper fears we do not wish to face. It is one thing to enjoy a thrilling novel once and awhile, or even a bloodcurdling musical album, but we hardly desire anything more than fantasy, while our saints are often seen as beings whose actions are far beyond personal attainment.
We often work well with one another in our careers when necessary, but it has been preached unto us many times that “greed is good.” Yet, greed by even its most basic definition is not a good—it is an outright evil: greed is when a person desires more than they have earned. A greedy person is not competitive in their ultimate desire, they are a weak and lethargic person of despair, for altruism and hard-work are not problems we should avoid; instead, these characteristics bring immediate harmony to our lives and make us better—not only as a team, but as balanced individuals.
As a result of these words thus far, some may already believe this work is to be taken as a “Marxist” philosophy, or, for those that are slightly less “condemning,” that it is, at the very least, a “leftist” creation, but this is not the case whatsoever. The common understanding of Marxism (a totalitarian dictatorship) is far divorced from that of an intellectual to begin with, but even according to the more thorough understanding of this view, although selflessness shall be taught herein, this should not necessarily make this the work of an enemy: this seems to be the case more and more in our modern times—whenever compassion is expressed, a person is thought to be, at the very least, an authoritarian in disguise. But it is not surprising that we should feel this way; humanity holds many more wolves throughout its history than it has Sheppards, and those that often make us feel the safest are often the ones that shall harm us in an amount that is more than equal. There are many truths that Marx expressed somewhat accurately, although many of his thoughts are disagreeable; to be certain, however, his ideas were somewhat easily manipulated and used as a basis for greater evil. If there is one pattern we can be sure of in our past, it is that corruption is often well-served with wisdom as its base; it is much more prudent to sell a hundred lies from the deep rocks of a philosopher. Some of humanity’s darkest days were based upon the ideas of Christ, and the devil is clever to appear as God when it can be accomplished: the Old Testament, especially Exodus, contains many instances of “snakes” and “anti-snakes,” and many world religions associate the serpent as being both a source of renewal and regeneration, yet one of deceit and villainy. Therefore, this should be somewhat evident to us.
But surely, for some, to even mention a need for love in the modern world seems to now make one an enemy of “capitalism,” which is a sacred idea for many modern people today, insofar that one could name the free market as our new national religion, although we are even abandoning this temporal faith in recent times. The fact that we value the “invisible hand” is not necessarily bad, but such a disclaimer as thus is a necessity, for there are many in our day that attribute even masked expressions of caring and understanding with evil itself, as they have failed to separate the basic wheat from the chaff, so to speak, or, perhaps, the baby from the bathwater, even though Adam Smith’s original philosophy was never one whereby absolute selfishness was preached to begin with! For although there are many true leaders among us that genuinely care for our well being through little more than pure compassion, it is often far too great a task for even a handful of brilliant geniuses to aid more than a few hundred careless fools.
Perhaps it would be best, then, to make clear from the beginning that this work does not support an enormously centralized governmental or even “private” organization for hardly any purpose: asymmetrical relationships are more often than not the reason for the profound chaos in the modern world. If there is a generalized term I may call the type of thought expressed herein, I feel it may be close to anarcho-capitalism, if not simply as a result of the fact that our society is too hierarchical and nationalistic at this point in time, and that we must be balanced; however, my philosophy in general is not always aimed towards such matters.
There are two important reasons why I would not call myself an absolute anarchist, although I certainly do not wish to construe myself to be so much as a limited organizer of random acts of vandalism and violence (which is the common understanding of the more general term); instead, even according to the definition of one being a complete egalitarian, such an ideology as thus is not only self-refuting, but naturally impossible at the same time: differentiation is the reason the world is not a void, although this does not necessarily make anyone “better” or “worse” than another; yet, in the times that it does, a person may deserve more than others when their merits are consistently greater than those whom are less capable.
What is more, there is also a reason why I would not claim myself a complete capitalist. But to be clearer on this latter point, let us, therefore, discuss the matter of the public versus the private sector briefly in order to see why the latter is superior (the “private sector” described herein is the ability of individuals to independently control various forms of property).
In the end, of course, people are simply people.
But if there is a decisive way in which we may delineate a difference between the two sectors of American society today, it is within the way our current “government,” or local “states,” delegate resources in relation to the free market system: suffice it to say (for now) that the reasons for the general aimlessness and crawl of our current government are not the result of “government” being necessarily bad in and of itself, but instead, are the result of a lack of options being a source of corruption, for the election of a handful of politicians in a span of years is in sharp contrast to the supply and demand conditions of an aggregation of various purchases of incremental amounts throughout continuous time among a nearly universal population. There are other problems with the current American system of governance as well, which shall be addressed later on, but theoretically, the way of “voting” itself could be reinvented in a manner whereby balloting is a much more precise and greater measurement of our collective peoples’ individual desires, especially in our era of computational technology (a dollar itself is philosophically a vote). Considering our contemporary government indirectly controls the currency system through decree to begin with, it should not be difficult to understand that the lines between public and private are often slight at best, as the American central bank should not be in much control of the macro-economy, as U.S. bank notes must compete with those of the rest of the world (much less with real commodities), and as the dollar ultimately fluctuates based upon the beliefs of the marketplace, and not the other way around, although the Fed Chairperson may be quite convincing at times.
This is the truth, however: it does not matter whether or not production is in the hands of one generalized group of abstraction or another; what matters is simply whether or not resources are distributed and dispersed to those organizations that may make the greatest use of them—not only for those within their specialized fields—but for those who will simultaneously benefit society as a whole.
Nonetheless, the very young are not given a voice in most of today’s political affairs, although it has been said that such are the Kingdom of Heaven; however, they are already granted the ability to generate income, and they may choose their modes of employment—to some extent (they often require permission from their parents, but even this is more than they are granted at the polls). To this day, one must be 25 years of age to merely serve as a Representative in the House. The minimum age of a Senator is 30 years, which eliminates many individuals with PhDs from such positions. And finally, the President of the United States must be at least 35 years old—one would think our Commander-in-chief would therefore have the knowledge of at least three or four various graduate degrees by such a time in their life, which may allow them to be a semi-decent philosopher king of sorts.
But certainly, “foreigners” are not allowed to participate in “national” affairs, despite the fact that many work extremely hard for what little pay they are given. It seems that trade is nearly intuitive to humans, even unto the point whereby it can not be taken away from us. It would take far more time to rework our current political system for the purpose of justice than it would to rework our system of wealth.
Furthermore, there is one advantage in particular that the private sector has over the public one, and that is the former’s greater ability to be measured scientifically. Gold, or even homes, are far more easy to quantify than “who people know,” the latter of which is often the reason candidates and issues are selected at the polls. As far as our contemporary government is concerned, we have seemingly reverted back to royal bloodlines in many respects—both the left and the right are guilty of thus. If I were the son of a Kennedy, Clinton, Bush, or even a distant cousin of such groups, I am certain this book would likely be propelled into the social system of thought much more easily than otherwise, although it is less likely I would have thought of it.
But in some ways, the fallacy of a belief in royalty also applies to the private sector, as does the difficulty in measuring the latter’s power. In economics, there is a “law” of diminishing returns: this theory helps illustrate the decreasing gains in utility (smaller benefits) that occur from an additional amount of one thing when all other things are held constant; in other words, one should find less use for a given object the more that one has of such relative to other objects in the same circumstances—yet, this still does not really say much, so one may think of it this way: if life were simply a world of limited shovels, limited workers, and infinite expanses of dirt, and the workers were to simply pile the dirt for a “benefit,” eventually, additional shovels would be useless without more workers to hold them.
The idea of diminishing returns is a basic idea, to say the least, and it may not necessarily be useful in the real world, for reasons that will be made evident later on in this text, if not immediately, as the Universe is obviously not this simple, much less unchanging; nevertheless, social classes are one easy example of economic relativity in a “static” set of variables, as various groups of people have the same market at their disposal at the same point in time. In other words, diminishing returns may apply to the accumulation of one’s wealth compared to that of other peoples’ in a particular society.
Regarding currency especially, one person could never have a complete set of notes without making such units wholly useless for everyone else, or for themselves for that matter, as a monetary purchase of the slightest amount would result in them loosing their absolute control, which seems to be the ultimate desire of some. For if the rest of the people in their economy still believed in the money, despite never seeing it, as soon as the dictator would give any part of their currency away—even the tiniest amount—they would unleash great competition, as the other people would be so desperate for funds that even the smallest fraction of money would be more than they had ever seen before, which would allow the minor powers to divide the limited funds into shares of infinite assets, inasmuch that such shares would be spread throughout the society—in reality, our banks only hold a fraction of their assets in the form of “real” currency, and multiplication is not much different than division when inflation is promoted to be ideal.
Money would surely be put to better use if it were rare, however: people are often more careful with that which is precious and dear to their hearts, for if vast deflation were believed to occur, a reasonable person would only spend their funds on incredibly productive and/or pleasurable investments.
Of course, by dividing an absolute set of money, a monetary dictator of the world may still hold enormously more than anyone else were the former to give only an infinitesimal portion of their power away; yet, in order to achieve their same purchasing purpose as before, they would need to spend slightly more money than they had originally (or earn their former wealth back, which they would not likely desire to do, as they would need to compete with many people who would be much more desperate than them), which would mean that, eventually, the monetary power would become more and more equally distributed if the aggregate supply of funds were held steady: in the end, however, real equality would depend not on any numerical property, but instead, on the bargaining power (and productivity) of the rest of the world versus that of the controller.
Diminishing returns seem to be a rare reality today, however, in many ways, but even according to our most basic grasp of the system of wealth in and of itself, incredibly rich people usually have a much easier time attaining massively greater amounts of materialistic power at an accelerated rate. It could be said to be a national maxim by now that “one’s first million is the most difficult to earn.” And of course, enormous amounts of monetary votes may be handed down from certain elders to their younger generations very easily, spare a “tax” at times (which is often given back to the young aristocrats in other ways); unless the royals are complete buffoons, many of the snobbish youths will hardly need to labor in their lifetimes—and what is more, this is guaranteed in some respects, whereas political recognition based upon family ties is not necessarily as thus.
However, there is little doubt that, in the case of the German masses of the early 20th century, it was immediately understood the commoners were carrying armfuls of money around at great inconvenience; when Hitler rose to power, the populace became similar to frogs in heating water.
The issue is not who has the wealth, or the power in general—it is why they have it. Money and politics often go hand in hand for a reason. Although wealth is somewhat easier to measure, and is more empirical, than political influence, it does suffer from the same problem of humanity, which is to say that most people associate “power” itself with deserving more “power;” once again, this is a failure of simple belief on the behalf of the masses, or a lack of confidence in the collective authority of individual human beings.
But let us reiterate: even though material “wealth” is generally a more evolved and useful distribution method than “ballots,” using such an economical definition of power as an absolute explanation as to whether an object is good is worse than saying whether or not the chicken should come before the egg—it is more like saying vocal chords are the reason for speech. Indeed, the inherent confusion over an understanding of real power makes it difficult to define which modes of government are greater than others—nonetheless, as far as anarchy in particular is concerned—in one way or another, if one truly wishes to speak on the feasibility of such a philosophy, as the famous economist John Maynard Keynes once declared, “in the long-run—we are all dead.” If there is one comfort the unfairly downtrodden of the Earth may derive from death, it will surely be found within the undertaker’s sense of justice: anarchy is not simply possible; it is inescapable.
Illusions run rampant in our society.
Many movie stars and sports figures easily blow through millions of dollars with the right combination of drugs, sex, and violence, as they do not often have more than mere talent (we label “talent” loosely in popular culture to begin with). And idiotic politicians do not stay elected for long, even if they are not involved in relatively more scandalous affairs: most “powerful” people are not truly in control to begin with—they are largely figureheads for a much larger body of powerless individuals behind them, the latter of which often suffer a great deal writing countless tomes of paperwork while wondering why they went to college for so long—if they ever have the time to question the matter to begin with. Surely, all of these people may make a small difference in the world, and they might think they are “influential,” but in reality, they are often ignored; at the end of the day, their life is about their paychecks and mere survival in social networks. A number of “powerful” peoples’ lives are not much different than most ordinary persons’ as far as the spiritual and emotional realms of reality are concerned—these realms are what other powers must aid: materials are nothing more than means to the end, and in the most important of ways, exceptionally “superhuman” people may have worse lives than the tiniest among us.
But let us use wealth as a starting point for an explanation as to why common Americans hold a great deal more power than we imagine, for I am not sure if there is any other substance I could speak of that would be as easy for most of us to understand; some of us are highly philosophical, but once again, our country is definitely more materially oriented than we are even intellectually, and in many ways, our intellectual understandings are just as unevenly distributed as are our tangible holdings.
It is somewhat easy to see, however, that corrupt businesses find it relatively more difficult to develop into enormous enterprises (even utility companies supply real products to society, which they must work for, to some extent), or stay as such for extended periods of time (in comparison to political organizations, which are often more than helpful towards the relatively more corrupt businesses in the first place), although we often complain about how large corporations “steal” our money, despite the fact that we continually and willfully purchase their goods and services on a routine basis. The reasons for such criticisms are because our general population is simply unaware of alternatives the vast majority of time, although many people sense selections that may be hidden, which is why we may honestly believe politicians may solve many enormous issues after they issue a small speech with a smile. But usually, most complainers continue to buy the same materials because they feel there is a “need” for them, even though their desires are usually artificial to begin with.
Even in cases of “natural monopolies,” more often than not, the reasons these fiefdoms exist in the first place are the result of the greed on the behalf of their owners, workers, and consumers combined, for we are often so busy competing and attempting to gain footholds on one another that we fail to see the strength a united people may hold. Unfortunately, in our blindness, our labor unions and monopsonies (a monopsony is a united group of consumers) become hollow, if not worse than the forces they are made to counter, and therefore, those within powerful positions may remain slothful, for almost every worker and purchaser believes they can simply be lazy and gain a free-ride from their “unified” system, insofar that they do not even look past the most basic rhetoric and empty ideas of the “bourgeoisie,” much less the aristocracy (who are concurrent consumers, if not “proletariats,” when they are mildly producing, which is very rare, to say the least), much less to try and inspire insolence among their ignorant fellow men in that they should rise to the occasion in opposition. Our most common citizens have the potential to change society, but we still seem to respect crowns and “traditions,” even when we have supposedly revolted against such matters; then again, revolutions are often mentioned in regard to circular forces, so it should not surprise us that we often return to where we began, although we may be higher in general materialism in the long-run, which is not to say that we did not first take an unnecessary two steps backward in order to take three steps forward: it is usually better for a society to simply jump into another dimension.
But surely, if diminishing returns apply to one’s accumulation of wealth in and of itself, it would likely be the result of a person that is already rich and powerful requiring a much larger incentive in order to “work” even a slight amount. There would be no reason for one to perform an unpleasant duty when they have many options of extreme pleasure at their fingertips, which makes one wonder if some CEOs should not be paying their employees in order to enter the formers’ own offices: the bosses must enjoy their plush chairs and various business functions a great deal. This much is obvious to even the most ignorant of mankind, as many of us seem to understand we would likely retire if we won the lottery, but perhaps this is as a result of our understanding as to how power is gained—we feel power is usually a matter of luck, and not reason and/or cooperation; surely, not many of us truly feel we may attain greatness through the simple use of personal belief. Thus, the gap between “rich” and “poor” will become increasingly pulled towards two opposite ends, for while the owners will continually demand more and more in the hierarchy, the workers and buyers will become even more desperate to serve them, and although the material wealth of the society in general may increase, even this shall hit a point eventually whereby the workers realize they are not being compensated for their productions.
Physical happiness is mostly related to one’s position in present realities, or, more specifically, the estimation of personal esteem is as thus.
The United States alone have experienced an increasingly two-sided division of wealth during the past three decades: these are the times when “ordinary” men begin to question their intrinsic value, and these are the times when unity is recognized as being an essential part of liberty, for eventually, even the cloudy among us shall realize we are suffering much more than a relative few that reap grossly misunderstood benefits, and that we are as thus, because, quite simply, we believe “their” world should be ours; but in fact, we must learn to share our blessings with others, and to help aid those that are even less fortunate than ourselves, even unto the point whereby we come to understand the Heaven that already exists within us.
It takes great courage in order to recognize magnificence in one’s self, especially when one sees their identity as being nothing more than “normal,” but in the United States, once more, some of our greatest strengths are dormant: wealth is only a tool to fulfill the destiny we create, for even though our wealth has become increasingly opposed, it has grown so much that even the poorer among us are given exceptionally more benefits in the aforementioned three minor realms aside from materialism than any generation of the past possessed, for the realms are interconnected. This reading material itself would not have been possible if it were not for our increased technological productivity; yet, I, the author, am far from being materially “elite” when compared to others of our present-day American society: I can assure the reader as much, as shall be explained in an oncoming section of this book.
Our true potential is much more than the masses realize, or perhaps we do, for it seems we feel we deserve such in the form of more present physical possessions, although we are afraid to simply take certain things through justified labor and sacrifice; instead, we beg for them by giving even more of ourselves in the future. We are procrastinating in our desire to become a temperate society, as our proportionate savings levels are now as low as they were during the Great Depression, which is quite strange when one thinks about the matter, as we are supposedly in a prosperous era free from Depression according to what the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other institutions pronounce. This is not mere rhetoric: our simple monetary mathematical tables and formulas are evidence of the truth.
We must begin to take our lives more seriously in order that we may enjoy the beauty of existence.
War is unflinchingly promoted in our society as a time when our economy is heightened, which is quite odd when one thinks about the matter, for warfare hardly creates anything other than death and destruction: it is easy to make “unemployment” drop when one’s more basic labor force has been killed, and a nation’s GDP may grow when its people are creating devices meant to kill others—if they are not killing others directly through their “employment” in the armed forces.
Yet, is this the society we wish to be?
Of course, warfare is not necessarily evil anymore than money and ideas are.
Indeed, life itself is not necessarily a good thing, for death and destruction may be nothing more than forces of balance and more rapid evolution. At times, negatives and losses are necessary in order to bring about the creations of more meaningful and useful wonders. Nevertheless, the taking of massive physical human life is especially more difficult to justify in modern times than in eras of the past, even though such destruction has been promoted insanely far more often than not in the past to begin with. In fact, the lack of a need for modern warfare may be, surprisingly, a proof of diminishing returns in the real world: we have spent so much relative effort on warfare that our true defenses have become much too mighty to be even marginally useful.
Death is not an absolute end anymore than a demolition crew is necessary in order to tear down a ruin; the point of death should not be to merely destroy the aged, but it should be to create a work of greater splendor than was present before. And what is more, when we wish to deconstruct a building, it makes much more sense to use professional experts rather than crudely made explosives that detonate when workers and children are within the structure: even the aftermaths of highly sophisticated missile strikes are usually euphemized as being nothing more than “collateral damage.”
It is one thing to evolve—it is another to become a world of extremes: the shard contrasts of our times of “prosperity” and “war and depression” are proofs of the imbalances spoken of within these pages, for although our society often undergoes rapid growth for a few years, if not decades, we often follow such surges with times whereby we excessively destroy our blind “creations.” When we emerge from our ashes, and rewrite our definitions as to how our “power” is to be distributed, it is easy to say that we have grown again, as we have weakened ourselves and created extremely low expectations in the process. We are an incredibly impulsive people in the short-run, and our life seems as if it is perfectly understood, but it is not long before we are stubborn in our desire to add fodder to what some have named our “herd mentality of irrational exuberance” and complexity once again. One moment, we bathe in the luxuries of our hands, and the next, we are grabbing at each other’s throats for “essentials.”
There is a difference between competition and cooperation, but our competitive spirit should ultimately serve us in joining with one another. Too often, our society is quite the opposite: we often only share the love for ourselves and basic hedonism alone; we are much more willing to cooperate with others when we are in a larger confrontation, or when we will have our own immediate personal needs satisfied; war unites our nation into armies, while peace divides us into indifference, boredom, and faithlessness. Indeed, hedonism is not necessarily an evil, nor is a love for one’s self: true hedonism is mostly composed of compassion, and generosity; a deep understanding of humanity is one whereby the connection of the individual and their society is clear; however, in order to find such a reality, one must first learn patience, for many causes and effects take years in their reactions.
Our society has been filled with hypocrisies of epic proportions even unto the foundations of our nation itself, especially in regard to economical and political matters, but our fabrications are even greater today. In order to discover stratospheric truths, one must look upon life in an enormous context—and not by merely examining one small aspect of reality or another—unless we delve so deeply into our particular understandings that we discover the infinite within them. For our intellectual power itself will eventually fail us if we do not begin to pay more attention to the reason for empathy.
Within the next century, our Information and Space Ages shall be looked upon as being barbaric in nature. The promotion of scientific methods has been an especially enormous part of humanity’s development during the past 300 years, but we must learn to embrace even more than thus. Mere technological progress will not be the key to our success in the future any more than purely materialistic endeavors shall be, for society will develop even more greatly than has already occurred heretofore if its approaches to advancement are balanced. We should remain appreciative of our empirical understandings of the world, but simultaneously, we should cultivate a more philosophical affection for how much power lies latent as a result of the scientific development of our physical manifestations alone.
It is difficult to explain much of this in words, as, once again, a great degree of reality is decided by our beliefs (although not all of it is), which I hope is enough of a proof for most so that this book can be placed back on a shelf and one may be done with it, insofar that I could call this entire rambling document very effective, but effectiveness isn’t what many of us are looking for. Instead, we often measure worth according to how efficient processes are: instead of ends, we usually rely upon means. In the United States, when we reach what we thought our goals should be, we often do not become anything different than what we were originally; sometimes, we actually become worse. It is somewhat paradoxical, once again, but one may think of it this way—if we were in hell, which a number of us are, our efficiency could be measured by how fast we run around in circles.
We have become infatuated with digits, precise instruments, and complicated machinery, but we often do not know how special and meaningful the basics of life can be. We live according to highly complicated standards of rules, no matter how nonsensical their aims may be. Our lives are usually dictated to us by the opinions of our family members and/or friends, even when such ways may be incredibly fleeting compared to enduring fulfillment. And it is ironic that we care so much about the opinions of others, insofar that we lose our creativity and belief in our own paths, for the family unit and interpersonal relationships are becoming increasingly archaic in our country. If there were one thesis I could create for this work, it would be how the people of the United States need to embrace a profound independence, for our meaning of freedom has become one whereby we are dependent on widespread narcissistic social attitudes.
On the one hand, we are a wondrous nation, but on the other, we are a disgusting, snobbish, and selfish people that are revolting. This is not to say that we should be hated anymore than an infant that has soiled themselves and will not stop their obnoxious pouting, but if we are as powerful and glorious as many say that we are, we must also accept the responsibility that accompanies such might, and we must understand that the world is in chaos as a result of the example we set forth among the developing nations of the planet, for there is little doubt we are now the brightest torch among mankind. The United States hold a seemingly inexhaustible amount of wealth, and our arms are enough to defend ourselves from every country in combination, and we are definitely endlessly energetic, but we are not much happier than some nations that are rather “defenseless and poor.”
One of the key differences between our nation’s cornerstone philosophy and that of Locke’s was that we should possess happiness rather than property alone. There is one country in this world that a great number of Americans do not know much of, and it is no longer even formally recognized by other official governments, despite the fact that it was illegally invaded by a materially and militaristically larger neighbor. Although it has been said by some that it is the hidden capital of spiritual enlightenment, Tibet is continually ignored in any “important” political discussion of International affairs. To be certain, many have heard mention of the enormous power of the Dalai Lama as an individual, insofar that the man has ironically become a symbol of popular culture, but a simple name is all that many of us can grasp. I myself have little understanding of Tibet, much less Buddhism, but by a mere glimpse alone into the recent history of the nation, it is apparent that it is incredibly strong, despite the destruction of what little physical structures or army the country held.
Today, the Chinese government fears the Tibetan nation so much they do not even allow for it to be searched for on their Internet: the “Communists” create a great firewall to keep the thoughts on the matter out of the heads of their own citizens. Many of the Tibetans’ few religious icons were destroyed, their small government is in exile, and many Tibetan people were killed through brutal genocide, but the Chinese can not allow for them to be known among the billions of proletariats they supposedly represent. Tibet is perhaps more of a threat to China now than it ever would have been, for the Chinese leaders see this country without so much as a police force as being such a lurking method of their destruction that they can not even grant their citizens the ability to gain the most basic knowledge about their past. Problematically for the Chinese, however, Tibet is nearly indestructible now, for the nation is more than a simple land filled with a religion—it is a rare ideal of peace and compassion.
However, this is not a book about the plight and journey of the Tibetan people.
As an American, I understand much more about my own country, and it would be best for me to stick with my “expertise,” although we are all merely human deep down, as has been noted. I must also admit, of course, if there is any question as to how I believe on this matter, that I myself suffer from the same plague as my nation in general, in that I am far from absolutely perfect and all-knowing; what is more, I am guilty of some of the basic wrongs I shall identify herein, although I have done my best to improve my life in such matters in more recent times. But it is with all of this in mind that I have made somewhat of an effort in order to explain some intriguingly applicable options that the vast majority of Americans may overlook in order to find happiness, which I would hope remains our ultimate goal, although, to be honest, it is difficult to grasp exactly what is going on within my own head at times, much less within those heads of the majority of us.
It would be good, therefore, to illustrate some concrete examples as to what I have meant by naming our people as pitiful in some respects, as mere rhetoric is tiresome, especially since some have likely taken great offense from such accusations. But please, dear reader, as a word of warning: do not feel I am attempting to be “anti-American” in my biting sentiments of the reality within the shadows we dare not gaze upon for more than a fleeting moment before we shudder back into the hopelessness of our “realism.” For it is true that Europe and other industrialized nations suffer from similar calamities as us. Once again, however, I am best qualified to speak more about our own people than others; more importantly, I would also like to make clear once more that I do not feel we deserve senseless pain and suffering, as we are all children to a certain extent, in that we are forever learning, which is also why it is important that we remember the need for forgiveness, as I do not wish to harm our “leaders”—I hope this work is taken to be constructive criticism for those that doubt it.
Since we have been speaking of happiness somewhat, however, let us bring an issue to the forefront of this text, as it seems to be one that has been on a large number of our minds for years now. We did not like to think very much about the problem before we reacted, so it would likely be best if this is brought up right away, as we still see this as being something that needs major attention. After all, fear is certainly a negative emotion that detracts from our happiness, so let us discuss terrorism for a moment.