Slaughterhouse-Five: An Anarchist Review

Title: Slaughterhouse-Five

Author: Kurt Vonnegut

Published: 1969

Rating: 4.5 (out of 5) 

The alternate title for the book is A Children’s Crusade: A Duty-Dance with Death. At The beginning of the book the author claims to be writing a book about the battle of Dresden, a lesser known allied air-strike where more people died than at Hiroshima. A wife of one of the author’s friends is angry he is writing a war book because war books always glorify war. She says they were just children fighting in the war. He agrees to call it A Children’s Crusade. In many ways, modern wars are no different from the children’s crusades of the middle ages.  

In war we send out 18 or 19 year old men, but in many ways they are children, they do not know what they are doing. This sets the tone for the rest of the book which I find to be symbolic of war, even though the actual war is talked about very little.

Most the book is nonsensical. The story is told in a completely non-linear fashion. The first part which talks about the author, but the rest is about an optometrist named Billy Pilgrim. Billy claims to have been abducted by aliens that see in the fourth dimension. They teach him the “true nature” of time. They can all go to any moment at any time. They can look at moments in time like we look at the rocky mountains. This leads to the convoluted story telling. Billy believes this and can somehow jump from moment to moment. He tells about part of his story during the war when he is in Dresden, then he is back in the states before the war, then back in the war, then at another point in the war, then getting married after the war, then when he is old, then when he is in school, and so on. By the end the reader is able to piece together his whole life, but it is like putting a puzzle together.

This is in many ways like war. It doesn’t make sense. After we see destroyed buildings and bits of pieces of information from different survivors and with that a story is pieced together which eventually becomes the narrative thousands of school children will recite on tests. Yet it is not the story of the war. We learn a broad story of events that logically follow one another and culminate in victory for the good guys. The history of America’s wars in most history books read more like a Victorian novel or an epic Greek poem. For the actual soldiers, it doesn’t make sense. There are bombs, explosions, going here and there and they don’t even knowing why. There is a reason tons come back with PTSD and other ailments: they just went through hell, and the worst part about it is that it is senseless hell.  This is the reason the bombing of Dresden is not well known, because it does not fit the narrative. The good-guys don’t just bomb a completely unprotected city for no reason and kill thousands of civilians for no apparent reason. So what do we do, we skip over that. We get Hitler Bad, Hitler attack, Winston Churchill good, Churchill save day, American fighting men save the day, allies win, world saved! Yet this is not the story of war: this is the fantasy of those that don’t want to understand.

In this story Billy talks about visiting space aliens and going through time warps and all this stuff. It is all kind of crazy, but nothing compared to the craziness of sending bombs down on innocent people, but so it goes.

The aliens Billy meets are also very deterministic. There is no ability to change the course of events. Each moment happens because that is just how it is constructed. Billy knows when he is going to die, but he does nothing because that is just how it is. Throughout the book whenever someone dies (which is almost every other paragraph) it is followed by the sentence: So it goes. As if that is just how it is. Of course, to the man in the army this is how life feels, this is how war feels. You cannot choose where you go, or when you leave, or even when you go to the bathroom. It is all controlled by some external and seemingly arbitrary force. Life is completely controlled. You are a mere pawn in some scheme that you are completely incapable of fathoming.

And that is slaughterhouse five. It is not a story about a crazy optometrist who gets abducted by aliens. It is about some children, 18 and 19 year old children, sent on a crusade they didn’t understand. It is about the crazy stories they have to create to make sense of their lives. Billy Pilgrim is not insane for seeing aliens; the world around him is insane that escape to aliens is a better alternative than reality.

The book is definitely worth a read, so read it, or don't: this is the anarchist review: reading without rulers. 

Burma, The Book of Mormon, and the Immigration Conundrum

I was raised conservative. My political views have shifted significantly over the past 20 years of my life, but I come from conservative background, and in many ways still identify more with “conservative” than I do “liberal.” However one thing that I have never been able to grasp is the stance of many conservatives against immigration. Even in my truest reddest Republican days, I never could make sense of this position. Open immigration is a free-market idea. Being pro free-trade and anti-immigration is a completely contradictory and hypocritical stance. Recent events have made the stance of conservatives further isolate them from being successful.

            I always hated the term “compassionate conservative” applied to some conservatives because it implies that conservatives are not compassionate, which I do not think is true. However, recent events in Texas and on the border have tested my thesis, so I bet conservatives everywhere to prove that they are indeed compassionate people by their treatment of individuals as individuals regardless of what side of an imaginary line they happened to be born on.

The Current Situation

The most important thing to understand about the current border situation is that the flood of immigrants is almost entirely driven by U.S. foreign and drug policy.

The immigrants are not coming from Mexico; they are coming from Central America. Central America is a place that has been repeatedly destroyed by U.S. foreign policy. There is hardly a country in Central America that has not had the slimy octopus tentacles of U.S. intervention. The U.S. has propped up multiple dictators, helped dispose of democratically elected governments, supported rebels. You name it; the U.S. has done it in Central America. It is no wonder that the place is in complete turmoil. As is obvious now from Iraq, U.S. intervention rarely helps to eliminate violence and increase stability, in fact all the opposite.

The drug war in the United States has forced the militarization of an entire industry to protect itself from the U.S. military and the DEA. This has turned the drug war into a real war with real human casualties. It replaces peaceful voluntary exchange with violence. It does nothing to eliminate or lower drug usage, and it creates violence both here in the U.S. and abroad, particularly in south and Central America.

The U.S. government through foreign intervention and drug policy has turned entire countries into war-zones.  Honduras is one of the most violent and dangerous countries in the world. Central America is loaded with violence, much of which can be directly attributed to U.S. involvement. With this in mind, the idea that we would turn away children fleeing from violence that our government created, is so repulsive and disgusting to me, I do not see how any loving human being could embrace this idea.

The bottom line these are people; real life human beings who happened to be born on the other side of an imaginary line. They have cares, dreams, and hopes. They have been on one of the most treacherous and dangerous journeys imaginable. They are victims of violence sewn by our government, and they arrive at our door step and we are going to say we hate you and get out? Where is our humanity?

In this essay I want to give some examples that will hopefully appeal to conservatives as to why they, more than anyone, should be more open and loving towards immigration and immigrants. There is no excuse for the hate being spread against immigrants.

The Karen people from Burma

            The Karen are an ethnic group from Burma (Myanmar). During World War II they supported the British in Burma, which caused a lot of animosity from the majority ethnic group: the Burmese. In 1949 just after Burma was granted independence, conflict arose. Since 1949, there has been conflict between the Karen people and the Burmese government. It is one of the longest civil wars on the planet.

The Burmese have attempted to carry out a systematic extermination and genocide of the Karen people. Many Karen fled the terror in Burma to neighboring Thailand. Had the Thai government done nothing except to grant these victims free exercise of their rights of life, liberty, and property, this large work force and potential market would have built and helped lift a struggling Thai economy. Besides basic police protection they would have had essentially no burden on the government while benefiting the economy.

Instead the strict immigration policies would not allow the entrance of the persecuted people into Thailand. People in Thailand were so worried about having more job competition that they turned away people who were on the brink of starvation. People who were eating tree bark just to make their hunger pains not be so intense, people who had had their entire villages livelihoods burned to the ground, people who had seen brothers and fathers and cousins tortured in the most horrific of ways. Can you imagine? Oh, but they might take a job, they may want to work to support their family. That of course cannot be. We cannot have people working to support their families here, so send them back, send them back face death and starvation on the other side of this imaginary line.

A group of Karen refugees eat traditional food in Salt Lake City

The Karen people were forced for many years to straddle the border. When the Burmese military was getting close they would flee to the Thai side, when the Thai police came, they would flee to the Burma side. Needless to say, living conditions were far from ideal and people died. Eventually because of international pressure, refugee camps were set up. These camps granted some (limited) protection from the aggression of the Burmese military, but did not grant the refugees much opportunity. They could not work and chase their dreams, they had to live their entire lives in a few acre area. If they did leave they were outlaws and were constantly at risk of being caught by the Thai police who were notoriously corrupt.

What is one of the saddest parts about the whole situation is that instead of working and contributing to the Thai economy as would have been the case had they been granted entrance, the refugees became a burden on the economy. The Thai government (with the UN) had to feed the refugees, and the refugees with little to no opportunities in the camp were left with no motivation to get an education and succeed. Drug use and other problems became rampant. Hopelessness became epidemic. Of course if anyone was put in a small compound with no opportunity for growth or ever leaving that small area, they would get infected with hopelessness as well.

So not only did the Thai government turn away the victims of violence, they hurt themselves and destroyed even more lives through complete enabling and taking of opportunity from those that did survive. (For more information on Karen refugees and the Karen people see KarenRefugeeVoices.com.)

How is the situation of the Karen people and the Thai government, any different than the United States current immigration “problems”? There is essentially none. The option is clear. We either treat these victims of violence as human beings and let them work and contribute in our economy, or we shun them. We turn them back to their homelands to be killed, or we put them in some sort of refugee camp where they will become dependent on the government, cost the government money, destroy their own lives, and not help anyone else either.

The choice is clear and easy: acceptance and love is the only way.

For LDS readers, Examples from The Book of Mormon.

            A few years back in Utah, the immigration debate exploded. Rarely does the L.D.S. church take a stance on any political issue, but with immigration they did, with not one but multiple press releases. Although not extremely direct the first went against any SB270 Arizona type law and supported compassion and caring in regards to immigration. They then supported a guest worker program that was supported by the Utah legislature. The church referred people to this editorial from the Deseret News when asked about immigration.

            I thought for sure this would lead to Utah becoming a model of compassionate immigration reform. The legislature passed HB116 as a guest worker program focused on getting people here legally, instead of keeping people out. It appeared as if Utah was at least open to a more rational and compassionate approach.

            However, just when everything was going so well, the Republican caucus met and voted for a repeal of HB 116. They even went to so far as to call those that passed it “traitors to Utah”. Many of the caucus also called for a stricter, Arizona-style immigration law. It seemed as if not even the state’s prominent religion was able to curb the vitriol of some conservatives. It was very discouraging. However, based on polls, it appeared that those “hard-liners” were a small vocal minority. 

I would hope that the U.S. and particularly Utah would be an example of welcoming immigrants with compassion and love. The Book of Mormon has many examples that support the idea of a more open immigration policy.

Case 1: Omni 1: 12-14

            In these versus the people of Nephi are the immigrants (or refugees) escaping aggression from the Lamanites and were probably a good-sized group of people.  They find the land of Zarahemla.  One might think with this huge influx of people from another group that the native inhabitants would be angry. But the Book of Mormon says nothing about rallies and protests because these “immigrants were taking their jobs.” There does not appear to be any anger or animosity from the Mulekites (the people already living in the land of Zarahemla) toward the people of Nephi. In fact it appears to be all the opposite: “There was great rejoicing among the people of Zarahemla.”

Case 2: Mosiah 24:25 - Mosiah 25

            In this section of the Book of Mormon the people of Zeniff and the people of Alma return to the land of Zarahemla after being away for a couple of generations in the land of the Lamanites. This group was also the victim of violence from the Lamanites, and fled to live with the people of Zarahemla. The groups were also of considerable size and yet once again the Book or Mormon makes no mention of anger or contention about a competitive job market or education possibilities. Rather, just the opposite: “King Mosiah did also receive them with joy.”

Case 3: Alma 27:5-23

            In these versus a group of the Lamanites (bitter enemies of the Nephites at the time) converts to the religion of the Nephites. As this group is now a persecuted group among the Lamanites they decide to seek refuge in the neighboring nation of the Nephites, their former enemies (sounds somewhat familiar to some similar modern situations). Once again this group of people is not turned away with the excuse of not having the proper documentation. They were not subject to all sorts of legal obstacles, or put in tight refugee camps, but rather welcomed as fellow-citizens, given freedom, land, and protection.

            All of these are interesting cases from the Book of Mormon on how immigration was handled, and I feel case enough to support compassion and understanding in the immigration debate.

The New Testament and Final Comments

            Conservatives more than anyone should embrace a more-open immigration policy: it is based in free-markets and free-trade and encourages more freedom. David Brooks quotes a study from the National Opinion Research center that shows that, “Those who express less tolerance toward a variety of minority groups also are more hostile to capitalism.” Capitalism is all about freedom and trust of other people to do what is right. If conservatives claim to be those that support capitalism, freedom, and the “American Dream” they must be willing to grant freedom, capitalism, and the opportunity to live the American Dream to those on the other side of the imaginary line.

            Christ said the second great commandment was to “love they neighbor as thyself.” Neighbor means any human being. Christ even gives an example of someone from a different group and place as being a “neighbor.” There is no asterisk in the verse that says only those of the same nationality. In fact the New Testament does not give much credence at all to nationality. Regardless of the nation they are born in, regardless of what side of the line they were born on they are still people, they are still neighbors, and as such deserve our love and compassion. 

The Attorney Generals: An adventure of Haysis and Mal

“I am guessing you have seen the news?”

“You know I make a point to avoid the newspapers.”

“Yes, I never understood that.”

“You wouldn’t.”

“How does the person most capable of understanding and interpreting current events not read the newspaper?” Mal looked right at Haysis with her slightly crooked smile begging for some reaction.

“Does a scientist read Scientific American?”

“Well yes, I think so.”

“Then they are idiots.” There was an awkward pause where Mal looked around not sure if he was insulting scientists or her for not knowing much about them. “Anyways, why do you ask? What sensational piece of worthless knowledge are the public so curious to know about that they will pay a dollar and waste 15 minutes reading about just so they can sound like experts to their friends?”

The Pier 49 where they were eating suddenly went quiet, and Mal didn’t know what to say with multiple people looking at her companion. The man taking orders was the only one to speak.  “Two slices is all, any drink with that?” The moment ended and people went back to their conversations.

Mal, feeling a bit awkward, leaned over to Haysis and whispered, “perhaps you should talk a bit quieter.” Haysis rolled his eyes.

“They are only a bunch of Goldman Sachs employees. They all know it is true. Look how they watch the sports news, as if it mattered. They talk as if they were talking about something. That one over there thinks he is such a big shot because he got a job at Goldman Sachs. He is going to reach the big time. He is going to have so much money! What a joke.”

“Quiet!” Mal lifted her finger to her mouth. “They may be listening!”

“And? Do you think one of them is cute or something? There is a room filled with men in business attire here, I am sure anyone would gladly take you home, regardless of what we said.”

“Please. Even if I wanted to, most are probably married.”

“So? You think they have standards? I think you are forgetting that they work for Goldman Sachs.”

Mal looked around at the stares of people who were obviously trying to avoid looking but were unable to help it. “Come on, let’s go!” She grabbed Haysis by the sleeve, pulling him up while he anxiously reached for his pizza.

“I was enjoying my pizza, my dear senorita!”

“You were making sure no one could enjoy their pizza.”

“It is not my fault they didn’t find the truth pleasurable.”

They walked down the main street past Sam Weller’s bookstore and out of the financial district of Salt Lake City, Haysis, perturbed and finishing his pizza.

“I was saying the case of the Attorney Generals. John Swallow and Mark Shurtleff were arrested on felony charges.”

“Oh that. Who cares?”

“Who cares? This is one of the biggest stories to come out of the state of Utah this year, and you don’t even care? This means corruption at the highest places in our government, and you don’t even care?”

Haysis simply laughed and kept walking.

“What? I don’t get it. What is the joke your highness?”

Haysis looked around at the intersection. “Hey, I have a bit of sweet tooth (what a silly expression), I’m going to jump into that Judge bakery or whatever it is.” With that he crossed the street, and Mal followed quickly behind.

“Tell me, what is funny about the Attorney general’s case?”

“Besides their names?”

Mal smiled. “Yes, besides their names.”

“Nothing really.”

“Gosh Haysis, I thought you were not so juvenile. Of all the people in the world, I would have expected you to be the one capable of taking something seriously.”

“I can.”

“Okay, then what do you think about the case? Are they guilty? Are you going to try and work on it?”

“Are they guilty?” Haysis made his “please” face. “Are you serious? How long have you known me Mal?”

“A few years why?”

Haysis was distracted by the lady at the food booth. “What would you like?”

“One of those cookies please. Thank you. Here.” He handed the women his card.

“Here you are sir.” Haysis grabbed the card and the cookie.

“Two years. Two years and you ask me if two bureaucrats are guilty? I am beginning to question your value beyond your shapely figure and gorgeous face.”

“That wasn’t a compliment.”

“I know.” They stopped and looked at each other for a moment. Haysis turned and kept walking toward State Street. “Let me tell you something about criminals. Being a criminal is a job for some, a career for many. And just like most careers, there is stratification. There are managers who run one store; there are managers that are CEOs of multi-billion dollar organizations. That is a pretty large spectrum. Crime is the same way. Some criminals steal bikes and televisions and cars. These people are like regular store workers. The smarter and more capable criminals are in charge of organized crime groups, mafia leaders. But do you know what the smartest criminals do? What do the cleverest sociopaths do?” Haysis gave a condescending smile, Mal humored him.

“What?”

“Sociopaths want to hurt people for their benefit. They steal to put someone else down and them up. But you know, it is not that easy being a criminal. There is a lot of risk, someone could catch you. Someone could shoot you. Sometimes you have to actually see the people you steal from and confront the reality that you are hurting them. That all sucks. There are better ways to go about satisfying your sociopathic urges. You can become a policeman. Then you can control people. Take from people, carry a gun, hurt people at your benefit, and be generally viewed positively by society. But even there is risk, and there is not that much money or prestige in it. The best of the best sociopaths is not going to be a common criminal, they are not going to be a policeman. The best place is controlling the policeman. Politician. Bureaucrat. These are the geniuses and CEOs of the criminal world.”

“Psh. Be serious Haysis.”

“I am being serious. Goodness girl. Wake up. Don’t tell me you are as blind to the world around you as those Goldman Sachs employees. I gave you more credit than that. Look at politicians. They get to control people. They get to control armies and police forces. They get to say who goes to prison and who doesn’t. They can tell people what light bulbs to use and what ones they can’t. They can order the deaths of people and steal from entire populations. However, that is not even the best perk. Oh no. The head of a very successful mafia boss can do most of that. But know what the real perk of being a ‘public servant’ is?”

“Praise.”

“Exactly. I am glad you are not completely lost.” Haysis smiled and appreciated Mal’s equally warm response. “Politicians get the praise of people for doing all the evil stuff they want to do. They can control what kind of light bulb people are using and feel like they are ‘helping the world.’ They can send down bombs on all sorts of people in other countries and pass it off as ‘protecting their people.’ They can be involved in wars and still earn Nobel Peace prizes. They can steal from a whole population and never have to individually see the faces of those they are stealing from. It really is a great gig.”

“I’m not sure if I agree with you completely, but I see your point. I’ll have to think about it. But what does this have to do with John Swallow?”

“Aaah! Are you serious? He is a politician, did you miss my talks about politicians?!”

Mal laughed. “Well, in the normal paradigm, is he guilty?”

“I don’t know. I don’t even know what the normal paradigm is. Sure he probably took some campaign contributions he shouldn’t have.  He possibly tampered with evidence. I don’t care. These are political fights. This is like two mafia bosses fighting over who broke the rules. They’re mafia bosses. They make their money from stealing and deceiving and intimidating and blackmail. When the tide of Mafia politics brings accusations against one Mafia member and they find stuff about him, is he guilty for breaking mafia rules? Well probably, but does it matter? They are all breaking rules. They are mafia members for Christ’s sake.”

“So you are saying his accusers are just as guilty as he is?”

“Of course, whatever guilty means in this case. There are thousands of rules and completely insane regulations that have nothing to do with reality. If I say I have made a whole bunch of random and likely frequently contradicting rules in my imaginary universe, are you ‘guilty’ for not following them? I guess so if you have agreed to follow them, as Swallow had. Of course the ‘laws’ are so complicated and insane that everyone is breaking them. It is just a matter of searching long and hard enough on any given person. You have probably committed a few felonies and misdemeanors just this week.”

“So should they go to jail?”

“Sure, why not,” Haysis remarked flippantly, “Should mafia boss A put mafia boss B in jail? Yeah why not? I wish mafia boss A would lock himself up while he was at it, but oh well, take what you can get I suppose.”

“Okay. I can tell I am not going to get much of anywhere on this one.”

“No you are not.”

“Fair, let’s get to the library, we are late for the meeting.”

“Oh, there is something I do find very humorous about this case.”

“Yes?”

“That one of the ‘crimes’ they are accused of is misuse of public funds. That made me laugh. In other words they are going to jail for being politicians.”

“Ha! Well good point there.”

 “Thank you.” Haysis smiled. “And you look great in that dress.”

“You are still not earning any points. Come on.” Mal led the way into the building. 

The Fault in Our Stars: An Anarchist Review

Title: The Fault in Our Stars

Author: John Green

Published: Dutton  Books, 2012

Rating: 4.5 (out of 5) stars

First off I need to tell you: I am a teenage girl. Not in the anatomical way, but in the “I still believe in the happily ever after prince and princess story.” I guess most people would just call that the naïve way. But this is not regular naivete. I've been through my cynicism and heart break and all that, and have decided sometimes naivete is the best. This brings me to The Fault in Our Stars.

It is curious. The book prides itself on being non-ideal. This is the book about the “real story” not the romance story you see in the movies. This is the book where people have real sicknesses and are not pretty, and die and don’t have the typical happy love story. The irony is that it is the movie with the ideal love story, where the guy and girl love each other despite all obstacles. If we wanted a story that was not ideal we would just go talk to our neighbor or uncle or sister about how their boyfriend/girlfriend hooked up with them and then left/cheated/was not emotionally present. But those stories are cheap, you don’t pay for that. This story became popular because it is not  real, because it is incredible and beautiful in a way few actually experience and in many ways that no one will ever experience.  However, before we get into that, the best aspects of the book are its philosophical and thematic discussions.

The Meta Aspect

The book revolves around another book: An Imperial Affliction.  As it turns out, this is not a real book. We get glimpses of the book that binds Augustus and Hazel together and drives lots of the plot through the quotes that are shared from it and what Hazel tells us about it. Many of the best quotes in the book are actually quotes from An Imperial Affliction. It is a book about a girl with cancer and how she and her family deal with it. What is The Fault in Our Stars about? Well the same thing actually. AIA helps Hazel cope with life in many of the same ways as I am guessing John Green imagined TFIOS would help people understand and cope with life. Interestingly the author of AIA, Peter Van Houten, is not helpful at all to Hazel and Augustus. He doesn’t answer their questions and is a jerk to them. What is John Green trying to tell us? Perhaps that he as the author is not some sort of God or genius or miracle worker, but rather it is the power of fiction, the power of the story that can really help and heal people.

The levels and possible interpretations about the meaning  of the relationship between the real author and the fictional author created by the real author and the fictional book created in the real book that is fictional are virtually endless, and fascinating. The idea of the Author of a book as a character within a book has been explored in the Spanish tradition, but is not that common. AIA is a book within a book that is itself the book that it is in. It is like we are looking at one of those pictures of a guy holding the picture of the picture itself.  It is somewhat mind-bending. And awesome.

The Theme

The best part of the book, and movie, are the philosophical discussions. There is a lot about God and the afterlife, and the meaning or lack thereof of life. But what is the overall theme?

I make the case that the theme is the idea of “oblivion” versus meaning (maybe you disagree, so please, write your argument and send it to me). One of the first things we hear Augustus Waters say is, “I fear oblivion.” To which the protagonist, Hazel Grace replies: “There will come a time, when all of us are dead. All of us. There will come a time when there are no human beings remaining to remember that anyone ever existed or that our species ever did anything. There will be no one left to remember Aristotle or Cleopatra, let alone you. Everything that we did and built and wrote and thought and discovered will be forgotten and all of this will have been for naught… If the inevitability of human oblivion worries you, I encourage you to ignore it. God knows, that's what everyone else does.”

This battle between meaning and senselessness continues throughout the book. These are young cancer patients predicted to die before they reach middle-age, who better to pose the question: Does my suffering mean anything? “Cancer kids are essentially side effects of the relentless mutation that made diversity of life on earth possible,” writes the protagonist, Hazel. She represents the position that it is all random chance, there is no glory or purpose in any of it, and she seems to stubbornly hold to her position, despite spending many afternoons in the “Literal Heart of Jesus” (the room in the church where she meets for her cancer support group). Augustus represents the optimism that there is a “purpose.” He, like many, is filled with the notion that his life should mean something. That when he dies newspapers will mark his passing and thousands of people will morn his death. I once thought this is what everyone wanted in life, because I did and assumed everyone thought the same. I was surprised when I met people who were satisfied with a few close relatives being present. This is likely the the healthier view, and what wins out in The Fault in Our Stars.

Therefore neither Hazel nor Augustus’s view has the day, but rather both. As Augustus laments his lack of notoriety, Hazel responds, “You say you’re not special because the world doesn’t know about you, but that’s an insult to me. I know about you.” He will not be known by thousands like Cleopatra or Aristotle, but will be known by all those that matter, the ones closest to him. His suffering and life meant something. It is put most beautifully by Hazel in Augustus’s “pre-funeral” the funeral Augustus holds for himself before he dies, because he always wanted to attend his own funeral. “Some infinities are bigger than other infinities.”* “… There are days, many of them, when I resent the size of my unbounded set. I want more numbers than I’m likely to get, and God, I want more numbers for Augustus Waters than he got. But, Gus, my love, I cannot tell you how thankful I am for our little infinity.” There love meant something. It meant infinitely much, even if it was only for a short time. And that is the most beautiful aspect and idea in the book.

Book Versus Movie

There is not much difference between the book and the movie. The movie’s plot is a little more succinct, as in some of the details are rearranged and some parts taken out.  I would go so far as to say the movie story line was superior to the book, but of course the book had some added emotion, and extra philosophical discussion. And obviously there is a visual aspect to the movie that is not in the book which tends to favor slightly better-looking people than the average person. Overall the movies follows the book about as closely as you see in a book to movie adaption.

The Departure From Reality

Every book has to obey by its own rules. A book can have any sort of crazy laws and physics and creatures, but it has to obey those established rules. Gravity can’t pull people up in the first chapter and down in the second chapter (unless of course the established rule is gravity is always changing, which would be an interesting concept for a book). This book chose our own world, the world we all know. In particular young cancer patients in Indiana, so the rules are set. John Green, the author, obviously knows what he is talking about; he lives in Indiana, and has spent lots of time working with kids who have cancer. So he gets it all right, with one flaw, one over-sight, one breach of reality.

The book (and particularly the movie) panders to teenage girls. This departure from reality explains my infatuation with the book, and likely the story’s success. Many movies pander to men by having girls who are incredibly gorgeous (and don’t know that they are) fall in love with the shy, awkward guy. This is of course the fantasy of thousands (if not millions) of men, and the key to the success of these stories. This book is simply the reverse. Here is a guy who is “hot” and athletic. He was a successful basketball player and has an excellent physique. Girls love him. He is happy and outgoing, charismatic charming, and did I mention, hot? Yet despite all this he falls in love with a girl of average (at best) looks who does not play sports or go to pool parties or wear sexy clothes. He loves her because of her intellect and personality. The guy is 17 years old. Pretty standard right? Sorry to burst your proverbial love bubbles my dear fellow teenage girls: But there is no such thing as an Augustus Waters. Hot guys know they are hot, and hot teenage guys who are good at sports are generally as into beauty as they themselves are beautiful. So despite the fact that you may have read Dickens, Hemingway, Voltaire, and all the other intellectual books, it still will not help you get the basketball captain with perfect muscles and face. There may be some exceptions, and maybe it has something to do with having cancer (though Augustus says in the book that cancer patients are just as vain, silly, and irrational as the rest of us), but I don’t think there are many high-school aged Augustus Waters out there, however I would like to think so. (To be completely honest, I don’t think there are many Hazel Grace’s out there either, but I keep hoping, and when I do find her, I plan on being her Augustus Waters, albeit minus the muscles and good-looks.)

That said, this ripple in reality, does not detract from the overall awesomeness of the book. This may be because I am a teenage girl, or it may be because it actually is a great book that most anyone with a heart will enjoy.

Have fun reading! Or don’t. This is the Anarchist Review: reading without rulers.

*A small note on the mathematics of set theory and Hazel Grace. Mathematically there are indeed infinities that are bigger than others. However, Hazel’s examples are bad ones. She chose infinities that are the same size. There are only two types of infinities, countable and uncountable. I actually think John Green knows the difference and the error, but chose to leave it in because it sounds better. Really she should have said something like: the natural numbers 1,2, 3, etc. go on forever and are infinite, but are smaller than the infinite number of real numbers between 0 and 1, but that is a tad complicated so instead Green just used between 0 and 1 and between 0 and 2, which is easier to grasp. However, in that strange twist of mathematical craziness, there are actually the same number of numbers between 0 and 1 as there are between 0 and 2. I know, weird. Math is not a tame lion. 

Politics is not for you

After having been involved in politics for years I have come to the conclusion that politics is not for me.

Now before you start making assumptions, keep reading.

I fell in love with politics before high school, when I was younger than 15. For 10 years I talked about politics, thought about politics, and wrote about politics.

There were the inevitable setbacks. 2000, 2004, 2008 were all pretty depressing, along with every other year. But 2012 brought a new hope. Like a young boy raised by his uncle in a distant planet, this man could perhaps bring balance to the insanity around us.

I wrote blogs. I told my friends. I went to rallies. I put stickers on my car. I even hoisted the man above my shoulders as he crowd-surfed at a rally in Salt Lake City. It was our time. Victory was ours.

Then it fell apart. Election night came and went, and not only had we not won, we had not even garnered a fraction of what we had hoped.

I was completely and utterly distraught. What had it all been for? I even thought for a moment that I should let it all go, and give up on ever changing the political situation and just let the whole government go to hell in a hand basket made of federal reserve notes.

I went to my father with the frustration. It was one of those moments that we all have, when life slowed down, the air draws in, the movement of every leaf and door seems more poignant and memorable.

Here you may be expecting that my father told me: “You selfish kid. Politics is not for you, it is for everyone else. It is not about making yourself happy, it is about concern yourself with the success and happiness of others!”

Well guess what? He did not say that. He said something about how politicians only do what millionaire campaign contributors want them to do and vented his own frustration with the system and gave little hope it would ever change.

And guess what? He was right! Nothing will ever change! Before you think I am being sarcastic or cynical, let’s look at reality.

Just recently Northwestern and Princeton universities carried out a study to figure out how much the opinions of the general populace had on federal government policy. What was the result? None! Our opinions have essentially zero effect on what happens in government. Now, before I overstate, let me add a caveat. If you happen to be the CEO of a large corporation, or the head of a large Union, or run a hedge fund, then yes, you do have a say in government. In that case, your millions of dollars of donations actually do affect policy. But a 10$ donation to Republicrat A or Third-Party B? It does nothing. Sorry to be blunt, but your vote for Obama, or Romney, or Johnson, or whoever, does nothing.

You have zero effect on federal politics, so stop pretending like you do. Wake up! Politics is not for you! Unless you are prepared to donate a million dollars, you are like the football fan watching ESPN and thinking that the louder you scream the more points your team will score. Sorry, but no go.

Is there any hope of change and progress? Of course! But it won’t come through politics.

You change the world by how you treat your neighbor and friends and family, not by throwing name in a box. We end hunger by donating ten dollars to feed someone who is hungry, not by donating ten greenbacks to a narcissistic politician who claims he cares about the poor. I don’t know how to make this more clear: but we fix the problems we see in the world by fixing the problems we see in the world, not be using more guns and violence (i.e. government), nor by giving money to some idiot to use guns and violence (i.e. campaign contributions).

If you want to help the world, if you want to make people’s lives better, then for goodness sake go do it and stop wasting your time on politics as if you were going to change something.

You won’t, because politics is not for you. 

All Wars Begin and End in the Home: Gladiator, An Anarchist Review

There are really three aspects to the movie Gladiator, the religious, the political and the familial. The political aspect is interesting, but the familial aspect is really the driver behind the whole story. 

There are two families, that of Marcus Aurelius, and that of Maximus the general. (note: the movie has some historical flaws but for the sake of this review it will be taken has history.)

It starts with Emperor Aurelius overlooking the war, as he has spent 16 of his 20 years as emperor. The movie suggests he was war-like in his early years as emperor but then had an awaking. Of course the fact that he dies at war somewhat flies in the face of this. Furthermore it seems Rome is going to hell in a hand-basket during his tenure. However he did end the gladiator fights (not historically accurate) and wrote some good words down on paper. By empirical reality probably not the best of men, but emotionally we are supposed to identify and respect him in the movie, or at the very least not hate him.

Marcus Aurelius Overlooks the battlefield- a position he was used to.

Interestingly the man we are supposed to hate is Marcus Aurelius’ son, Commodus. This is a difficult task for the movie accomplish. The movie has to somehow make us love the father while hating the son, but deep down we know this cannot be. When Commodus is talking about his “bad” qualities, we know that he did not get them from watching Roman TV shows, he got them from his father. The movie even points Aurelius’ bad parenting out. He says to his daughter, “Let us pretend that you are a loving daughter and I am a good father.” To which his daughter responds, “This is a pleasant fiction, is it not?” More blatantly Aurelius says to Commodus, “Your faults as a son is my failings as a father.” Aurelius was of course away at war for 16 years. How could he be a good father? Or even a father for that matter. He was a sightseer and war monger who occasionally took a break to say hello to some children back at home. The movie attempts to make it appear as if Commodus is a bad egg that randomly hatched out of nowhere but deep down we know this is not true. We know instinctively that Commodus is who he is largely because of his father. It is apparent that Aurelius was gone during much of his children’s lives. He was likely gone during many of the most crucial years.  

This is the story of the movie: that national disasters and wars do not begin on the battlefield, in negotiation rooms, nor in state buildings. Wars begin in living rooms, kitchens, and classrooms. Particularly detrimental are the disastrous homes of the political elite. The horrors that happen in those living rooms are acted out in grand scale with bombs and soldiers. Furthermore the movie shows that not only do wars not begin in the battlefield, they do not end there either. All wars begin and end in the home. The war pulls fathers away and families apart and sews the seeds of further conflict, destruction, and sadness. This cycle is the story of the movie.

After the opening battle sequence that is there largely to draw us in, we are shot into the actual meat of the story, the familial dysfunction. The battle with all of its evils and flaming arrows and dying people are simply the bloody manifestations of the familial dysfunction juxtaposed in the movie just after the battle sequence. To make it more complete the movie should have opened with the familial politics and then gone to the battle scene, but cinematic demands make you come in with a more visual stunning bang (mad props to the special effects crew and all that, the battle scene does have some pretty breath-taking images.).

Of course the war itself makes no rational sense (as always). But wars are not rational, they never are they never were, they are emotional manifestations of familial dysfunction and are not based at all on their supposed political goals. The movie claims that after the Romans fight this final battle against the Germans the whole empire will be safe and at peace. So this was not the first, or last, “War to end all wars.” Every war is the war to end all wars. That is how politicians get people to fight “Just fight this war, and then there will be peace and all your children and grandchildren will be able to live in peace! Do it for your children and future generations! Fight for peace!” And so, people sign up. This is what they said during World War I. The war to end all wars. Fight for peace, so your children can live in peace. Was there peace for their children? No of course not. The children had to fight in the bloodiest conflict in human history, WWII. Politicians have been saying this is “the last war” since before ancient Rome, you think this time it will finally be true? Marcus Aurelius is of course aware of this; shortly after the battle he says “There will always be people to fight.”

Clearly, they did not need to fight this random Germanic tribe. “People need to know when they are conquered,” says one general. It is about being in charge, not actual threats or safety. What were a bunch of hairy men in the mountains really going to do to the Roman Empire? Indeed it makes about as much sense as our wars and military bases throughout the world that do not make us safer, but do give us a superiority complex. Did Rome really need the northern half of Germania to survive? Surely the Roman army could not think they were “helping them out?” Like we so daringly say about our wars in the Middle East, “We are there to help them out.” Say that to the Iraqi who is dead and to all of his family. How much did we “help them out?” Similarly the Germanic tribes who were slaughtered probably did not feel so “helped” by the Roman army.

The opening battle is great cinematography

The worst part about war is that it always lays the seeds for future wars and familial dysfunction.

It is not far into the movie when Commodus kills his father. He does this just after his father tells him that he does not trust him enough to be the next emperor. Commodus murders his father to become emperor. Is this not what his father taught him? Aurelius has “murdered” to maintain the empire, in fact he has sent thousands of young men to their deaths, as well as ordered the deaths of “barbarians.” So though we are supposed to hate Commodus for killing his father, and love Aurelius for his valor in battle, they are the same thing. Commodus is doing exactly what his father has taught him to do his whole life, or at least 16 years of it, to go out and kill anyone who threatens your hold on the empire.

What is more, the physical killing of Aurelius is his son’s retribution for his father’s killing of him. You cannot kill unless you have first been killed inside. Aurelius, through lack of love toward his child, through abandonment as he was off to war, killed his son inside, leading to his own eventual murder.

Most people see the villain and his lust for power as the drive behind the movie, but this is not the case, that is the mere outward manifestation of the abandonment because of the wars and ambitions of his father. This is the tragedy behind the horrors of the movie.

The war, as all wars, is fundamentally a war against families, not against Germanians. The Romans were told they were going to kill Germanians, but they were killing Roman families. Similarly when we go to Iraq or Afghanistan, or wherever else, the war is not against whoever the supposed bad guys are, the war is against American families and children who lose fathers for years or forever and who come back with PTSD and an inability to function in society. The war is caused by dysfunctional families and it then spreads that disease of dysfunction and violence to others. Maximus loved his family and his children. Apparently (as far as the movie showed) he had a good home. Then he had to leave for war, as he says he hasn’t seen his family for “2 years, 264 days and this morning.” His boy was only a few years old. During those crucial years he was left without a father. His family is fundamentally wounded. To make this clear the movie shows the Roman troops crucifying and burning Maximus’ wife and children. This is simply physically doing to his family what the Roman army had already done emotionally. 

No family involved in war can be spared this fate. They lose their father, or get a father severely wounded coming home. Many soldiers and families are able to survive and live well, but others’ lives are almost as that of Maximus, half-awake nightmares. This is shown by the fact that soldiers are more likely to commit suicide and about 20% of those involved in Iraq and Afghanistan have PTSD and/or depression.  

Maximus' family who he never sees again in the flesh. Family is the true cost of war.

After the death of Maximus’s family the story line splits. Maximus through some truly strange circumstances is picked up by slavers and becomes a gladiator, while Commodus is in the capitol scheming to eliminate the senate.

Here there are some interesting political discussions. Commodus talks to his sister about the need to get rid of the senate. Commodus is completely unable to negotiate or connect with people. This is seen in the scene at the senate where he simply plays with his sword and ignores the senators, then gets mad at them for nonsensical reasons and walks off in anger. This of course is a manifestation of his inability to connect with his father, but he extends that to everyone. He can’t make real connections or do real negotiations so for this reason he wants totalitarian power. If only there were not people in the way he could do what is right. If he just didn’t have to negotiate. This is also why he basically holds his sister captive. She becomes his “connection” the person he can relate to, even though she is completely scared of him.

She tells Commodus in her attempt to get him to step down from his ambitions, “leave the people their illusions, their traditions.” Isn’t that so fitting to what we see today? Princeton and Northwestern proved that the whole democracy thing is just that, a sham, an illusion, a tradition (at least in the United States). In reality “the people” have no control over what takes place in Washington. We are just like the people in Rome, kept with our “illusions.”

Commodus desperately wants the respect of the people, because he thinks it will fill that gaping hole in his soul where his father should be. He thinks being loved by the people will finally make him feel secure, complete, and not scared of being alone. “What do the people care about?” he yells. His sister suggests they care about the war, about the victory. “They never saw the battles – what do the people care about Germania?” Interesting because it is so true. What do they care about random fighting of people in a distant land they will never see. Yet that is war. It becomes important only because we are told it is. And so we grow to worship it as our defender when it is really all the opposite. “They care about the greatness of Rome.” Says his sister, which really just shows the lack of connection with people. People care about their families, they care about their businesses, they care about their hobbies, they care about their friends. It is these mere abstractions that people put up as important when they are unable to connect to those more important things.

The whole political section is extremely fascinating because it is so relevant to our current political condition, as well as for the fact of its slightly conservative bend which is almost non-existent in Hollywood.  All the politicians are represented, rightfully so, as out of touch, entitled jerks. There is of course an exception: The “good” politician. The existence of a “good” politician is more Hollywood fiction than reality, but I suppose relative to other politicians, some do look good. The good guy is Gracchus. He is wealthy (as all the senators were and are), intellectual, and well-read. When he shows up to the gladiator games, one of the other senators is surprised that he would show up to see the “mob.” “I never pretended to be a man of the people,” says Gracchus, “I do strive to be a man for the people.” In the Senate we see him discussing minutia such as how to fix the water supply and ward off a growing plague. He isn’t talking about grandiose ideas. He is an Edmund Burke politician, the intellectual father of conservatism. He has a pragmatic, gradual change, virtue to him. He is not pretentious, but straightforward and pragmatic. Ironically this is the opposite of all Hollywood stands for, which is why it is not often glorified.

Gracchus, the "good" politician (as if that existed).

In what Gracchus calls a “brilliant” move, Commodus brings back the gladiator games (his father had ended them for moral reasons). Gracchus doesn’t think the action is good or right, just politically brilliant. He knows how people think. The people are losing what little political control they have, so Commodus says, “here is some entertainment,” and everyone cheers. Is this any different than today? We all know we essentially have no political voice, and we all know the government is going to hell in hand basket, and the debt is a mess, and people are dying because of our facetious wars. And what do we do? We wonder what the last thing Miley Cyrus did at her concert. We get together and drink beer and watch some guys run into each other gladiator-like in stadiums modeled after the very coliseum where the gladiator games were held. Have we really advanced that much? We still fall for this stupid gag. Throw some games and put out some celebrity, and BAM they don’t even care or notice that we are financially raping them and they can do nothing about it.

It is also interesting that at the beginning of one of the games people go around the stadium throwing out bread; loafs of bread for all to share, a gift from the emperor. Well how about that for original? Using food and money as a way to buy popularity. This is of course exactly what politicians continue to do. Promise benefits and a constant stream of free food and goodies so that people will show up and vote for them. Humans have changed little since the days of Rome.

Throughout the movie we see poor Commodus in a desperate attempt to gather the love of the crowd. He thinks he must be everything and everyone must care about him. This narcissistic megalomania is what makes politicians. It is not about helping people or changing the world. They are up there searching for the praise and love to fill the void they cannot fill in their lives. Every vote they receive is one more badge on their ego to cover their empty souls. Look at politicians: a group of people who cheat on their wives and steel from the public purse to enforce their vision on the world. They are up their building their Utopia for us as if we did not know how to live our own lives and we need their superior knowledge on every subject imaginable to guide us. Nothing short of complete narcissistic megalomania leads you to that. Notice that there are two “i’s” in narcissist, and three “i’s” in politician.

In a vain attempt to gain approval of the crowd, Commodus brings back the gladiator games. 

In fact, the reason we like completely evil politicians and villains in our movies is because they make our sick system, our corrupted and evil leaders, seem less evil by comparison. This is why we like the Hunger Games and movies with emperors that kill their father. We can suddenly feel comforted that though our “leaders” lie to us, steal from us, start frivolous wars, sell off our children’s futures to foreign bankers, arrest people for carrying the wrong forms of vegetation in their pockets, and just about every other evil imaginable, at least they are not killing their own fathers. At least we are not that bad.

After being a movie that has so ingeniously and beautifully opened up our minds to truth, the movie ends with what I call the great myth. The movie shows evil after evil of political power, shows the horrific effects of violence and war, and then at the end, says that the good guy wins and he wins by using violence. This is the great myth that so many movies disseminate in the minds of people. Our minds for some reason identify it. We want the good guy to rise up and kill the bad guy and make everything right. We want the white knight to save the day. This is of course why society, keeps trying to use this same solution over and over again. We cannot see that this “solution” is the very cause of the problems in the first place.

Violence cannot solve the problems violence creates. I don’t know when Hollywood and society will catch on to this one, but that is the great myth. I will rewrite this statement in a few other ways that will maybe relate to leftists and rightists. All these statements are forms of the same thing: War cannot solve the problems war creates. Government cannot solve the problems government creates, Abuse cannot solve the problems abuse creates, rape cannot solve the problems rape creates. Take any one of those statements that resonates with you and simply universalize it. War is violence, and violence can’t solve violence because war cannot solve war. Government is violence, rape is violence, abuse is violence. All these things are different form of the same thing: violent and coercive force over people. For some reason we keep thinking some Maximus will come in and kill the emperor and make everything right. We think some Hero will ride to victory and kill all these violent oppressors. Guess what? It is never going to happen. You cannot play with evil at its own game and win. You can’t expect to walk onto a basketball court with Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, and Karl Malone and expect to come out as the winner. If you attempt to take down tyrants with violence, one of two things will happen: you will lose and get brutally killed either physically or emotionally, or you will become an even more horrible tyrant than the one you are trying to take down. This is a game you cannot win. The only way to win is to not play.

The Hollywood myth: being able to end violence with more violence. 

Stop waiting for Maximus. Be a hero today. Not with guns or violence. Guns and violence just create more guns and violence. The only solution is to first eliminate the desire for violence in us and spread love to others. We first must fix our homes before we can fix the world. Until we love our children and our wives and our husbands, we cannot spread love to others. We cannot expect to end war and end violence against other races and cultures when we cannot even love our very own children and neighbors. We cannot expect to expand tolerance of other world views when we do not even allow our children to view the world differently than we do. Until each child wakes up every day confident the he is loved regardless of his ideas. Until each child wakes up confident there are people around him protecting him, until that day comes, we have not seen the end of war. For war begins, and ends, in the home.

Not on historicity: Aurelius really did have a son named Commodus who succeeded him as emperor. Also it is generally considered that Aurelius was a "good" emperor and his son was a complete narcissistic failure.  However, there is no evidence to suggest that Aurelius appointed someone else besides his son to be emperor, though it has been speculated. Aurelius died of the plague, and was not assassinated, and his son had already been serving as emperor for multiple years. Furthermore Commodus ruled for 12 years, not just a short while as depicted. Furthermore Rome never returned to a Republic, as the movie suggests would happen. On an interesting note, Commodus was killed by a fighter, a wrestler not a gladiator, whose name was Narcissus. 

Tuxedos and Smiling Faces

And they sat in their tuxedo-ed dinner parties 

Discussed tomorrow

The future

No harm was meant.

No evil thought of

Yet they were alone

In their revelry

In their white halls

Where politicians and celebrities alike

Meant no harm to

Masses they purpoted to help

While living off their ignorance

And their honesty

And liberty

Sitting comfortably

While their actions

Or inactions

Led to the deaths of thousands

The poverty of millions

Innocents

School children

And wedding guests

Die in rubble

Dust blowing over their diseased corpses

While the heroes, the celebrities,

The Nobel peace prize winners

Laugh over jokes and selfies

And they call it

Democracy

They call it Justice

They call it 

peace

The Sixth Floor Museum: An Anarchist Review

I was just in Dallas and wanted to see the sights. As it turns out, the only real sight in Dallas is the museum that commemorates John F. Kennedy’s assassination. It must be sad to be a city only known for where someone was shot. But I digress.

What nuggets of wisdom did The Anarchist Review glean from the experience? Did I finally crack the case? Figure out Lee Harvey Oswald’s true motives? Unfortunately the answer is no. Despite walking over the same area thousands of people have walked over, and watching the same footage thousands of people have pored over, no new revelations on this great criminal mystery came to my keen mind.  But some important observations I do have.  (My thoughts on the crime investigation at the end).

The museum is a government museum, and as with all things coming from that fountain of guns and propaganda, must be taken with a grain of libertarian salt, if you will. However, to be fair I do feel the government is not trying to hide things in the museum and does its best to give accurate information. You just need to understand their engrained biases.

One of the most interesting aspects (outside of the intriguing criminal investigation) was a board near the end of the museum about results of the shootings.  The first thing on the list is that congress passed a law that made it a federal crime to kill a president or vice president.

Are you kidding me? What is the government’s solution to everything: write some words down on a paper to add to the long list of laws that no one reads. The layers of lunacy in this are just too much. If only there had been a federal law against killing the president, I am sure Lee Harvey Oswald would have put down his rifle, traded it for an American flag, and joined the crowds of people cheering the visit of President Kennedy.  

The other even more disturbing thing about the law is that it means the death of us commoners is not a federal crime. What does this say about a government By the people, for the people, and of the people? If the governments put protection of itself over protection of the people, does that not make it government By government, for government, and of government?

What was the number two listed outcome from the shooting? A large increase in security spending. More money to the secret service and CIA. It is curious every tragedy almost inevitably leads to an increase in federal spending. 9/11 led to an explosion in the security state, Kennedy’s assassination did the same for the secret service.  

After the section on the direct results was a section on the legacy of President Kennedy. This is wear government bias comes in strong. Clearly it is a museum memorializing Kennedy’s death, so it is not going to air all his dirty laundry. Kennedy adoration is particularly strong. The clips from his speeches are eloquent. He is smooth and good-looking. Definitely the Barak Obama of his time.  The video presentation focuses on four things considered his legacy: The Civil Rights Act, the space race, volunteerism, and the arts. There are major issues with his approaches to these things but those will be covered in other anarchist reviews. I want to note a particular paragraph at the end of the exhibit.

The paragraph states that historians debate the effectiveness of JFK’s time and what benefit he actually created. But after discussing all the different opinions, the paragraph states his effect has been “overwhelmingly positive.” So basically, regardless of the facts or whatever happened, despite what historians say, JFK is a huge success because we say so. As is typical of government the guy has to be a success because he was part of government and what government does is always right.

Even I was almost brought to tears by the video they made about his life. Inspiring music, inspiring speeches, apparently good causes. What is not to love? They also show some polls that confirm how American’s have consistently rated JFK as the best or among the best presidents of all time. Is this based on data and reality, or a successful PR campaign? Based on what I saw at the museum, it is fully and entirely the result of nice speeches and a smiling face, good video shots and not a scrap of reality.

RIP JFK

Notes: I don't really buy into most or any of the conspiracy theories. However I do find it interesting that the group that most clearly benefited from the assassination was the CIA an secret service. If there was some organization behind it, that would be my guess. Likely of course they would work through a mob group, not themselves, an only a very few would know about it. But honestly it seems unlikely. It appears as if Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, but I would not be surprised if he did not.