The Thin Veneer Called Civilization 1

Even the most ordered society can fall into despotism.

One of the classical examples is the transition of Japan from an enlightened kingdom to a brutal conqueror within a few short generations. How did it happen? Just as importantly, could it happen again?

At the time of Emperor Meiji’s birth in 1852, Japan was an isolated, pre-industrial, feudal country dominated by the Tokugawa shogunate and the daimyōs, who ruled over the country’s more than 250 decentralized domains. By the time of his death in 1912, Japan had undergone a political, social, and industrial revolution at home and emerged as one of the great powers on the world stage. The New York Times summed up this transformation at his funeral in 1912 with the words: “the contrast between that which preceded the funeral car and that which followed it was striking indeed. Before it went old Japan; after it came new Japan.”

The word “Meiji” means “enlightened rule” and the goal was to combine “modern advances” with traditional “eastern” values

From a recent history of his reign and the aftermath:

“With the death of Emperor Meiji in 1912 a great deal of uncertainty about Japan’s future followed. Many believed that Meiji Japan had flourished under the steadfast rule of the emperor who reigned for more than 40 years. Now his first son, Yoshihito, ascended to the throne and took the name Taisho, ushering in the next era. Those deeply loyal to Emperor Meiji and resistant to modernization efforts were particularly vulnerable. Some would hold fast to the centuries of Japanese tradition, rejecting any shifts in gender roles or education and military reforms, while other reformers embraced change.

The young Taisho emperor was born in 1879 and at an early age contracted cerebral meningitis. The ill effects of the disease, including physical weakness and episodes of mental instability, plagued him throughout his reign. Because of his sickness there was a shift in the structure of political power from the old oligarchic advisors under Meiji to the members of the Diet of Japan—the elected representative officials increasingly gaining influence and power. By 1919 Emperor Taisho’s illness prevented him from performing any official duties altogether. By 1921 Hirohito, his first son, was named ses-ho, or prince regent of Japan. From this point forward, Emperor Taisho no longer appeared in public.

Despite the lack of political stability, modernization efforts during Taisho continued. A greater openness and desire for representative democracy took hold. Literary societies, mass-audience magazines, and new publications flourished. University cities like Tokyo witnessed a burgeoning culture of European-style cafés, with young people donning Western clothing. A thriving music, film, and theater culture grew, with some calling this period “Japan’s roaring ’20s.”

For these reasons the Taisho era has also been called Taisho democracy as Japan enjoyed a climate of political liberalism unforeseen after decades of Meiji authoritarianism.”

“One of the leading political figures, and the man who coined the term Taisho democracy, was professor of law and political theory Dr. Yoshino Sakuzo. After observing and traveling extensively in the West, he returned to Japan and wrote a series of articles promoting the development of a liberal and social democratic tradition in Japan. In the preface to his 1916 essay “On the Meaning of Constitutional Government,” Yoshino wrote:

 The fundamental prerequisite for perfecting constitutional government, especially in politically backwards nations, is the cultivation of knowledge and virtue among the general population. This is not the task that can be accomplished in a day. Think of the situation in our own country [Japan]. We instituted constitutional government before the people were prepared for it. As a result there have been many failures. . . . Still, it is impossible to reverse course and return to the old absolutism, so there is nothing for us to do but cheerfully take the road of reform and progress. Consequently, it is extremely important not to rely on politicians alone but to use the cooperative efforts of educators, religious leaders, and thinkers in all areas of society.”

With such ideas openly circulating, Japan also saw the rise of mass movements advocating political change.

Labor unions started large-scale strikes to protest labor inequities, political injustices, treaty negotiations, and Japanese involvement in World War I. The number of strikes rose from 108 in 1914 to 417 strikes in 1918. At the outset of World War I, there were 49 labor organizations and 187 at the end, with a membership total of 100,000.

A movement for women’s suffrage soon followed.

While the right of women to vote was not recognized until 1946, these early feminists were instrumental in overturning Article 5 of the Police Security Act, which had prevented women from joining political groups and actively participating in politics. They also challenged cultural and family traditions by entering the work- force in greater numbers and asserting their financial independence.

One of the most widespread political protests occurred in 1918 with Japan’s rice riots. Like the rest of the world, Japan was experiencing wartime inflation and low wages. The dramatic increase in the price of rice, a staple of the Japanese diet, had an impact on the entire country. In August 1918 in the fishing village of Uotsu, fishermen’s wives attempted to stop the export of grain from their village in protest against high prices. By October more than 30 separate riots were documented, the vast majority organized by women workers. They refused to load grain, attacked rice merchants, and protested the continued high prices. They inspired other protests, such as the demand by coal miners for higher wages and humane work conditions.

Much of this social unrest, political uprising, and cultural experimentation came to a halt on September 1, 1923.

On this day a powerful earthquake struck Japan measuring 7.8 on the Richter scale. This natural disaster is referred to today as the Great Kanto Earthquake. The force of the quake was so strong that a 93-ton Buddha statue 37 miles from the epicenter moved almost two feet. The disaster devastated the entire city of Tokyo, the third largest city in the world at that time, destroyed the port city of Yokohama, and caused large-scale destruction in the surrounding area. The earthquake and subsequent fires killed more than 150,000 people and left over 600,000 homeless. Martial law was immediately instituted, but it couldn’t prevent mob violence and the targeting of ethnic minorities. Koreans living in Tokyo were targeted, as rumors spread that they were poisoning the water and sabotaging businesses. Newspapers reported these rumors as fact. According to standard accounts over 2,600 Koreans and 160–170 Chinese were killed, with about 24,000 detained by police. The numbers include political opponents such as the anarchist Osugi Sakai, his wife, and their six-year-old nephew, who were tortured to death in military police custody. The officer responsible for this crime later became a high-ranking official in Manchuria.

Using the social unrest as an excuse, the Japanese Imperial Army moved in to detain and arrest political activists they believed were radicals.

After events surrounding the earthquake, the relationship between the military and the emperor began to shift. According to the Meiji Constitution, the emperor led the army and navy. However, all military decisions were actually made by the prime minister or high-level cabinet ministers. As political activists became more vocal, many were abducted and were never seen again. Local police and army officials who were responsible claimed these so-called radicals used the earthquake crisis as an excuse to overthrow the government. More repression and violence soon followed. Prime Minister Hara (1918–1921) was assassinated, and a Japanese anarchist attempted to assassinate Taisho’s first son, Hirohito.

Order was firmly restored when a more conservative arm of the government gained influence and passed the Peace Preservation Law of 1925.

Besides threatening up to 10 years imprisonment for anyone attempting to alter the kokutai (rule by the emperor and imperial government, as opposed to popular sovereignty), this law severely curtailed individual freedom in Japan and attempted to eliminate any public dissent.

The transition in the emperor’s role to one of greater power began with the death of Emperor Taisho on December 18, 1926.

Following tradition, his son Hirohito ascended to the throne and chose the name Showa, meaning “peace and enlightenment.” Hirohito neither suffered from physical or mental ailments like his father nor held the commanding presence of his grandfather. Rather, Hirohito began his reign by per- forming all the ceremonial duties flawlessly but appearing in public only for highly orchestrated formal state occasions. Over time as the political climate within Japan shifted to a more militaristic stance, so did the role of the emperor. One specific gesture is emblematic of the changes occurring in the role and power of the emperor. When Hirohito first appeared in public in the early years of his reign, commoners would always remain dutifully seated to avoid appearing above the emperor, but they were permitted to look at him. By 1936 it was illegal for any ordinary Japanese citizen to even look at the emperor.”

We all know what happened next.

 

When I see the chaos that is brewing within the United States in 2018 because of the divided political and social groups that claim leadership, I fear that we have a very thin veneer between an organized and civilized society and one that drops into complete anarchy followed by a harsh structure that will ultimately please no one.

The great earthquake of 1923 that claimed so many lives and caused the breakdown of their system could easily be mimicked today by any number of catastrophic events in America. We have been warned for years about the vulnerability of the power grid (with recent reports suggesting it remains so) and the very real concerns of pandemics which could easily leap across the wide oceans and affect the entire population. Rogue nations with nuclear technology and evil minded regimes could disrupt life as we know if in many different ways.

What would be our response?

Would we find ourselves in the mother of all martial law situations leading to a brutal and repressive regime? Could the world survive? As our chaos continues to grow and some groups are demanding a national disarmament, I would encourage them to study their history books before they willingly surrender their rights. I am not so inclined to go along with any suggestion of abolishing our basic freedoms. I will fight to the death to preserve them.

Mister Mac

 

Why do you need an AR 15? 18

Warning: If you are easily triggered, this may not be a good article for you to read.

See the source image

Why do you need an AR 15?

In the wake of the latest horrific shooting, the topic for many people seems to focus on why someone would need an AR 15. Depending on the political and philosophical background of the people speaking about this, the first thing you have to do is separate fact from emotion.

Fact: The AR 15 is not an assault rifle. It stands for “ArmaLite Rifle” after the firm that designed the weapon in the 1950s. The AR15 is a lightweight, intermediate cartridge magazine-fed, air-cooled Armalite Rifle with a rotating lock bolt, actuated by a piston within the bolt carrier or by conventional long/short stroke piston operation. It has been produced in many different versions, including numerous semi-automatic and select fire variants. or the most part, semi-automatic is the only version readily available to the public and no mass killing of civilians has ever occurred with one that was designed as fully automatic. (Bump stocks are not part of the gun as designed)

Fact: The AR-15 is not a “high powered” rifle. Yes, it has more power than a handgun – all rifles do. But when you’re talking about rifles, the AR-15’s .223 / 5.56mm ammunition is considered so low powered that it is banned from hunting large game like deer and elk because it cannot humanely take them down in one shot like most other rifle calibers can.

Fact: the typical owner has never committed a crime (there are laws about who can purchase one)

Fact: The AR 15 available for sale is a semi-automatic weapon. Despite its scary appearance, it is only one of many kinds of semi automatic weapons, many with high capacity magazine capability

Emotion.

If you come from a liberal or progressive point of view, not only do you not need an AR 15, you really don’t need any guns at all. We live in a modern age where the police and military have the only reasons to have firearms in the eyes of that group and the world would be safer and nicer if all the guns were gone. Most of them won’t say it out loud of course since they know it would reveal their bias but at the heart of most of them, guns represent a long ago day when we lived in a primitive society that no longer exists. Plus they don’t want to lose elections. That’s the reason they couch all of their criticism in softer terms like “sensible gun laws” and join groups like “Moms demand Action” and “The Coalition to stop gun violence”.

On the frontier, people needed guns as much as they needed an axe or a shovel. The frontier was full of dangerous things and your family’s protection was dependent on what you could provide. There were also no supermarkets back then so hunting played a key role in feeding that same family. As we evolved, guns also protected the livestock from dangerous predators and yes, we even needed protection against hostile Indians who saw our incursion as a violation of their lands.

But that was a long time ago. The world has evolved. We are more educated now and more sophisticated. From a liberal/progressive point of view, those were the only justifications for those weapons.

To the untrained and uninitiated, modern guns are symbols of war and are scary. I still laugh when I think about the east coast liberal reporter who wrote an article about the time he had to fire one for his article.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/reporter-who-got-ptsd-from-firing-a-rifle-responds-to-critics/article/2594020

Most anti-gun people will tell you about the capacity of fire for these weapons despite never actually seeing one or picking one up. They repeat stories from supportive publications that detail how destructive each weapon is. The truth is normally the first casualty in such stories but it doesn’t matter anymore what the truth is. AR 15s are bad and nobody needs to own one.

Then there is the other side.

People who typically identify as Republican or conservative are the ones who hold the brakes on the gun grabbers. Many are former military but all hold one belief as a core value. The Second Amendment is a sacred trust built into the Constitution for the express purpose of keeping the government from denying individual citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

The gun rights crowd have a healthy skepticism of the government. While many have served in the military and work in the government, they see the one truth that is rarely spoken of and universally known. In a Republic that often has an identity crisis, it is only one election cycle away from “democracy” taking hold of the seat of power and changing the rules. A shift in public opinion and a change in the weight of liberals to conservatives is the greatest threat to individual liberty and freedom that exists. It is greater than a foreign invasion, Russian meddling in an election, or a natural catastrophe of biblical equations.

Sound crazy? Well, what is a democracy?

Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία dēmokratía, literally “rule of the people”), in modern usage, is a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament. Democracy is sometimes referred to as “rule of the majority”. Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes.

The uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy, which makes all forces struggle repeatedly for the realization of their interests, being the devolution of power from a group of people to a set of rules.

A better word for democracy is mob rule. If you found enough people to take your side, you can force everyone else to abide by your rules and their rights no longer matter. In the twentieth century, there were many examples of the mob being manipulated to do things that were exactly why you do not want a pure democracy. The Communist Revolutions, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Laos and Cambodia. All were meant to be worker’s paradises and yet all ended in brutal destruction and widespread death.

The debate about gun control is much more than a debate about who can own a firearm. It is a debate about whether we can trust our future to the goodwill of our fellow man. To be honest, mankind has a really shitty track record. The government envisioned by the leftists proposes that all of our needs, including security, should be provided by the state. Given the chance in this utopian world, everyone would be the same (except of course the insanely rich leaders) and no one would have any reason to have fear.

That sounds wonderful until you get out of the concrete caverns of New York and the Ivy covered halls of Boston. When you are surrounded by armed guards and well-disciplined security, it is incredibly easy to say that no one needs a gun for protection. But it’s a big country. There are a lot of people in flyover country who woke up this morning to a completely different reality. The drug epidemic is out of control, gangs of every kind are running rampant in cities and even small towns. Crime is more violent and unpredictable as people lose their moral compass.

Think about this. The same group of liberal progressives that long for the day that you will lose your firearms are the same people who want us to have open borders. The same open borders that allow MS 13 to come in and out like they were actual citizens. Those leftists want all of the illegal invaders to have your constitutional rights despite the fact that they are not citizens and make no attempt to become them. That group of people even incentivize cheating by creating sanctuary cities and states. At the same time they are doing this, they constantly scheme and plan to disarm the rest of the actual citizens.

Do you trust the government to uphold your rights? Look at a place like Pennsylvania. Our democrat Governor and a democrat Supreme Court have just overturned the established voting districts because they didn’t like the balance of power. Just like that. No voice of the voters will mean anything because this governor has elected to lead a takeover of our state. The shift in power will result in higher taxes, more companies moving out of Pennsylvania and a public more dependent on government than ever before. Your rights will not mean a thing.

This government cannot provide the security for its citizens now. Many areas no longer have police forces and the state police can’t fill in all of the gaps. Wait times for a policeman to show up can be hours in rural areas. These same rural areas are already reeling from drug related crimes and to make it a complete disaster, the idiots in Harrisburg want this entire state to join others as a haven for illegals. With an increase in illegal invaders, MS 13 will surely see the opportunities. Entire communities can be held hostage and the pitifully weak state under progressive leadership will be powerless to do a thing. Most people are not aware of how large MS 13 has become but it corresponds to the number of leftists controlled states providing them with sanctuary.

And you want to take our guns away? What do you want after that’s done?

I am in the later part of my life. God will take me home at some point and I will no longer have to be concerned about the insanity sweeping across this once great nation. I remind myself every election that we are only one cycle away from losing all of our rights. While neither party is perfect by any means, I keep hoping that enough sane people will show up to do the right thing. Until then, I will keep the words of Patrick Henry close to my Bible…

“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided,” he said, “and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House?”

Henry then turned his attention to the British troops mobilizing across the colonies. “Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation?” he asked. “Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? …Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other.”

“Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty”—Henry burst from his imaginary chains and grasped an ivory letter opener—“or give me death!” As he uttered these final words, he plunged the letter opener toward his chest, mimicking a knife blow to the heart.

As to the original question, do I need my AR 15 or any of my personal defense weapons?

Yes I do.

If you have read this far and still don’t understand why, you probably never will. I would advise against you coming to take them away however.

Mister Mac