From Malcolm X's "The Ballot or Bullet"

So I studied this man, Billy Graham, he preaches white nationalism, that's what he preaches. I say that's what he preaches. The whole church structure in this country is white nationalism. You go inside a white church that's what they preaching is white nationalism. They got Jesus white, Mary white, God white, everybody white - that's white nationalism. So what he does the way he circumvents the jealousy and envy that he ordinarily would incur among the heads of the church, wherever he go into an area where the church already is you going into trouble, 'cause they got that thing what you call it - syndicated, they got a syndicate - just like the rest of the Racketeers have. I'm going to say what's on my mind 'cause the churches are, the preachers already proved to you that they got a syndicate.

And when you're out in the rackets, whenever you're getting in another man's territory, you know, they gang up on you. And that's the same way with you ran  into the same thing. So how Billy Graham gets around that, instead of going into somebody else's territory, like he going to start up a new church, he doesn't try to start a church. He just goes on preaching Christ. And he says everybody who believes in Him, wherever you go wherever you find him. So this helps all the churches and since it helps all the churches they don't mind fight him.

My Thanksgiving, Paralleled

So my family likes this beer company, Yuengling Lager, they make good alcohol, that's what they make. I say that's what they make. The drinking scene on Thanksgiving involves the whole family. You go into my house that's what they drinking is just about anything. They got beer, vodka, tequila, every alcohol out there - that's good alcohol. So what they do the way they circumvent the underage drinking and alcoholism that is normally present among the members of my family, wherever they go into an area where the family is they going to make a profit, 'cause they want that thing what you call it - alcohol, they want alcohol - just like the rest of the families have. I'm going to drink what I want to drink because my family is, my family already proved to me that they got alcohol.

And when I'm out among my family, whenever they pull out another man's keg, I know, they are going to share that keg. And that's the same way with me pulling out my own. So how Yuengling Lager gets around that, instead of not being used during my family's holiday, like they going to make a new alcohol, he doesn't try to make alcohol. They just go on making beer. And they say everybody who drinks it, wherever you go wherever you find it. So this helps all the people in my family and since it helps my family we don't let it go.

WW2: Time to get moving

In reading three WW2-era speeches from some of the most powerful people in the world, one can draw a few parallels in what they have to say. Whether it be Churchill of Britain, Hirohito of Japan, or Goebbels of Germany, there is a distinct message in the collection that if the country doesn't move into action, or out in Hirohito's case, then the end of the world is nigh. All use all sorts of hyperbole to illustrate that if their words are not heeded, then their country, and therefore civilization as a whole, shall come to a screeching halt. Fallacy aside, I find it funny how this statement works in each of these speeches, as it comes from completely different places in each situation.

The odd one out, Hirohito, proposes surrender in his speech. In fact, he's already made the call that they are surrendering, and simply is letting his people know. However, he still lets people know that they have to follow suit, and not go around killing the POW's they have, or else they could encourage the enemy to go even further as to take over Japan, effectively ending their society. Churchill, on the other hand, takes a far more solemn approach. He makes the same claim, but instead of saying they have all the power in the world, he lets his people know that blood will be shed. He levels with them, thus making his rallying call at the end, in which he makes his claim, all the more powerful. Finally, we have Goebbels, who was simply obsessed with convincing the German public that their actions were right, regardless of what the other nations of Europe believe. He almost victimizes Germany, putting them against the entirety of the world. He convokes so much pride in the people of Germany that his call to action, his statement that the world will end, throws them into a frenzy. Goebbels employed the same tactic as the other two leaders, but their position made the situation so much more passionate.

The men all used the same idea to move their people, but that's not what makes the situation so unique. What does do that is the background from which the statements came. If not for the varying histories of these countries, this connection would be so much more commonplace. Especially because motivating a country to go to/leave a war requires some level of public-speaking expertise, this connection is quite interesting. 

A Comparison of Machiavelli and Thoreau

Two drastically different philosophers have entered my life in the last week: Niccolo Machiavelli, the Italian political theorist, and Henry David Thoreau, the American Transcendentalist. In the two readings my class was given, Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” and Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, the word “man” seems to have a one meaning for one man and another for the other.

First and foremost, there is a clear difference in the meaning of the word “man” to Machiavelli and Thoreau. In “Civil Disobedience”, the government is blamed for being “inexpedient”, and is therefore putting the rights of man in jeopardy. Off the bat you see that Thoreau has a view of man that is one of freedom; that man deserves to be treated right. He says a man should have the ability to take what he sees as right to the government as opposed to voting, which Thoreau sees as a game. Machiavelli, on the other hand, sees man as nothing more than a subject. That is made clear alone in the tone he has when he speaks of citizens who his hypothetical prince must govern. Although “man” is not the focus of his writing, Machiavelli occasionally explains the negative impact that a successful prince has on his people, thus making his thoughts on what man is clear. Machiavelli wants the reader to know that his ruling, if done right, will make “men” into subjects, or slaves even. This creates a clear contrast between the two philosophers: one is clearly more concerned with equal rights and the fair treatment of all, and the other with earning, and more importantly keeping, power over the people. Now does this mean that one is worse than the other? Not necessarily in my eyes.

Machiavelli, the supposed “worse” of the two thinkers, came from a time of turmoil. He was in prison for treason when he wrote “The Prince” as a result of the Medici rule returning to Florence, his hometown. Machiavelli writes to explain to Medici how to do it better in his second go at ruling the city, and knows that Medici will need fear in order to fully control his people. He is not throwing “man” under the bus so much as he is simply trying to help out his new leader. Thoreau, on the other hand, was angry at his supposedly oppressive government and thus illustrated man as a free entity, not as a “machine” like those in the government are. Instead of having some sort of resentment towards Machiavelli for making man a subject and praising Thoreau for making man seem like a caged bird, vying to be free, I think that they both have very valid views on society, as they were both a product of their times.

“Man” is whatever one makes of it, whether it be free, or subjugated by a fear-mongering tyrant. Thoreau and Machiavelli make it perfectly clear with their thoughts combined that one’s perception of “man” is simply a matter of when and where one is.