Church Constitution Sample Doc: Fill & Download for Free

The USSR had no ovens for cremating victims exterminated for the “crime” of having Jewish ancestry.Nazi physicians did human experiments in RwandaAnne Frank, a young girl and her entire family except her father were killed for being Jewish.Hitler:The black-haired Jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end, satanically glaring at and spying on the unsuspicious girl whom he plans to seduce, adulterating her blood and removing her from the bosom of her own people. The Jew uses every possible means to undermine the racial foundations of a subjugated people. In his systematic efforts to ruin girls and women he strives to break down the last barriers of discrimination between him and other peoples. The Jews were responsible for bringing Negroes into the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate. For as long as a people remain racially pure and are conscious of the treasure of their blood, they can never be overcome by the Jew. Never in this world can the Jew become master of any people except a bastardized people.The Germany of today is a National Socialist State. The ideology that dominates us is in diametrical contradiction to that of Soviet Russia. National Socialism is a doctrine that has reference exclusively to the German people. Bolshevism lays stress on international mission. We National Socialists believe a man can, in the long run, be happy only among his own people. We are convinced the happiness and achievements of Europe are indissolubly tied up with the continuation of the system of independent and free national States. Bolshevism preaches the establishment of a world empire and recognizes only section of a central international. We National Socialists grant each people the right to its own inner life according to its needs and its own nature. Bolshevism, on the other hand, establishes doctrinal theories that are to be accepted by all peoples, regardless of their particular essence, their special nature, traditions, etc. National Socialism speaks up for the solution of social problems, issues and tensions in their own nation, with methods that are consistent with our common human, spiritual, cultural and economic beliefs, traditions and conditions. Bolshevism preaches the international class struggle, the international world revolution with the weapons of the terror and the violence. National Socialism fights for the reconciliation and consequent adjustment of the differences in life and the union of all for common benefits. Bolshevism teaches the overcoming of an alleged class rule by the dictatorship of the power of a different class. National Socialism does not attach importance to a only theoretical rule of the working class, but especially on the practical improvement of their living conditions and standard of living. Bolshevism fights for a theory and, for it, sacrifices millions of people, immense values of traditional culture and traditions, and achieves, compared with us, only a very low standard of living for all. As National Socialists, our hearts are full with admiration and respect for the great achievements of the past, not only in our own people but also far beyond. We are happy to belong to an European cultural community that has so tremendously embossed today's world with a stamp of its mind. Bolshevism rejects this cultural achievement of mankind, claiming that has found the beginning of the real cultural and human history in the year of birth of Marxism. We, National Socialists, do not want to be of the same opinion as our church organizations in this or that organizational question. But we never want a lack of belief in religion or any faith, and do not wish that our churches become club-houses or cinemas. Bolshevism teaches the godlessness and acts accordingly. We National Socialists see in private property a higher level of human economic development that according to the differences in performance controls the management of what has been accomplished enabling and guaranteeing the advantage of a higher standard of living for everyone. Bolshevism destroys not only private property but also private initiative and the readiness to shoulder responsibility. It has not been able to save millions of human beings from starvation in Russia, the greatest Agrarian State in the world. It would be unthinkable to transfer such a catastrophe into Germany, because, at the of the day, in Russia there are 10 city dwellers for every 90 country dwellers, but in Germany for only 25 farmers there are 75 city dwellers. National Socialists and Bolshevists both are convinced they are a world apart from each other and their differences can never be bridged. Apart from that, there were thousands of our people slain and maimed in the fight against Bolshevism. If Russia likes Bolshevism it is not our affair, but if Bolshevism casts its nets over to Germany, then we will fight it tooth and nail.Speech made at the Reichstag (21 May 1935) Found in Translation of Herr Hitler's Speech to the German Reichstag on May 21, 1935 Foreign Office Press. [page needed] German versionStalin:National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-Semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism. Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-Semitism is dangerous for the toilers, for it is a false track which diverts them from the proper road and leads them into the jungle. Hence, Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable and bitter enemies of anti-Semitism. In the U.S.S.R., anti-Semitism is strictly prosecuted as a phenomenon hostile to the Soviet system. According to the laws of the U.S.S.R. active anti-Semites are punished with death."Anti-Semitism: Reply to an inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States" (12 January 1931)Soviet troops liberate AuschwitzSoviet troops opening the gates of AuschwitzNazi propagandaAnti-Semitic film “The Eternal Jew”Films in particular played an important role in disseminating racial antisemitism, the superiority of German military power, and the intrinsic evil of the enemies as defined by Nazi ideology. Nazi films portrayed Jews as "subhuman" creatures infiltrating Aryan society. For example, The Eternal Jew (1940), directed by Fritz Hippler, portrayed Jews as wandering cultural parasites, consumed by sex and money. Some films, such as The Triumph of the Will (1935) by Leni Riefenstahl, glorified Hitler and the National Socialist movement. Two other Riefenstahl works, Festival of the Nationsand Festival of Beauty (1938), depicted the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games and promoted national pride in the successes of the Nazi regime at the Olympics.The Role of NewspapersNewspapers in Germany, above all Der Stürmer (The Attacker), printed cartoons that used antisemitic caricatures to depict Jews. After the Germans began World War II with the invasion of Poland in September 1939, the Nazi regime employed propaganda to impress upon German civilians and soldiers that the Jews were not only subhuman, but also dangerous enemies of the German Reich. The regime aimed to elicit support, or at least acquiescence, for policies aimed at removing Jews permanently from areas of German settlement.Outdoor display of the antisemitic newspaper Der StürmerA German couple reads an outdoor display of the antisemitic newspaper Der Stürmer (The Attacker). Germany, 1935.Nederlands Instituut voor OorlogsdocumentatieCovering up Atrocities and Mass MurderDuring the implementation of the "Final Solution," the mass murder of European Jews, SS officials at killing centers compelled the victims of the Holocaust to maintain the deception necessary to deport the Jews from Germany and occupied Europe as smoothly as possible. Concentration camp and killing center officials compelled prisoners, many of whom would soon die in the gas chambers, to send postcards home stating that they were being treated well and living in good conditions. Here, the camp authorities used propaganda to cover up atrocities and mass murder.In June 1944, the German Security Police permitted an International Red Cross team to inspect the Theresienstadt camp-ghetto, located in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (today: Czech Republic). The SS and police had established Theresienstadt in November 1941 as an instrument of propaganda for domestic consumption in the German Reich. The camp-ghetto was used as an explanation for Germans who were puzzled by the deportation of German and Austrian Jews who were elderly, disabled war veterans, or locally known artists and musicians “to the East” for “labor.” In preparation for the 1944 visit, the ghetto underwent a “beautification” program. In the wake of the inspection, SS officials in the Protectorate produced a film using ghetto residents as a demonstration of the benevolent treatment the Jewish “residents” of Theresienstadt supposedly enjoyed. When the film was completed, SS officials deported most of the "cast" to the Auschwitz-Birkenaukilling center.TheresienstadtIn response to growing international awareness of Nazi atrocities, the Nazis decided to allow a Red Cross investigation committee to visit the Theresienstadt ghetto in Czechoslovakia. Elaborate measures were taken to disguise conditions in the ghetto and to portray an atmosphere of normalcy. This footage, showing an orchestral performance, is part of a German propaganda film made following the Red Cross visit to Theresienstadt.Bundesarchiv FilmarchivView Archival DetailsMobilizing the PopulationThe Nazi regime used propaganda effectively to mobilize the German population to support its wars of conquest until the very end of the regime. Nazi propaganda was likewise essential to motivating those who implemented the mass murder of the European Jews and of other victims of the Nazi regime. It also served to secure the acquiescence of millions of others—as bystanders—to racially targeted persecution and mass murder.Source: Nazi PropagandaSoviet propagandaDeath to Capitalism; Against the White Terror and the Threat of WarNotice how the propaganda is clearly different. One is a prosocial message, the other is built entirely on building hate. Nazi Germany was built on the idea that those who were “genetically inferior” were corrupting the morals of the society and the only path forward was to exterminate them. In the Soviet Union the enemies of the society were those who chose to engage in antisocial behavior.The Soviet Union and its leader, Stalin, were indeed diametrically opposed to the notion of genetic superiority.Still others think that war should be organised by a "superior race," say, the German "race," against an "inferior race," primarily against the Slavs; that only such a war can provide a way out of the situation, for it is the mission of the "superior race" to render the "inferior race" fruitful and to rule over it. Let us assume that this queer theory, which is as far removed from science as the sky from the earth, let us assume that this queer theory is put into practice. What may be the result of that? It is well known that ancient Rome looked upon the ancestors of the present-day Germans and French in the same way as the representatives of the "superior race" now look upon the Slav races. It is well known that ancient Rome treated them as an "inferior race," as "barbarians," destined to live in eternal subordination to the "superior race," to "great Rome", and, between ourselves be it said, ancient Rome had some grounds for this, which cannot be said of the representatives of the "superior race" of today. (Thunderous applause.) But what was the upshot of this? The upshot was that the non-Romans, i.e., all the "barbarians," united against the common enemy and brought Rome down with a crash. The question arises: What guarantee is there that the claims of the representatives of the "superior race" of today will not lead to the same lamentable results? What guarantee is there that the fascist literary politicians in Berlin will be more fortunate than the old and experienced conquerors in Rome? Would it not be more correct to assume that the opposite will be the case?Report to the Seventeenth Party Congress on the Work of the Central Committee of the C.P.S.U. (B.) (January 26, 1934)The Gulag—Solzhenitsyn was full of shit. Even his wife said so:In her 1974 memoir, ''Sanya: My Life with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn'' (Bobbs-Merrill), she wrote that she was ''perplexed'' that the West had accepted ''The Gulag Archipelago'' as ''the solemn, ultimate truth,'' saying its significance had been ''overestimated and wrongly appraised.''Pointing out that the book's subtitle is ''An Experiment in Literary Investigation,'' she said that her husband did not regard the work as ''historical research, or scientific research.'' She contended that it was, rather, a collection of ''camp folklore,'' containing ''raw material'' which her husband was planning to use in his future productions.Natalya Alekseyevna Reshetovskaya was born at Novocherkassk in 1919 and studied at the universities of Rostov and Moscow. She first married Mr. Solzhenitsyn in 1940, four years after they had met as students.From the start, she wrote, there was tension between them over Mr. Solzhenitsyn's refusal to have children out of fear that they would interfere with his work.[1][1][1][1]The Conditions of the PrisonsA 1957 CIA document titled “Forced Labor Camps in the USSR: Transfer of Prisoners between Camps” reveals the following information about the Soviet Gulag in pages two to six:1. Until 1952, the prisoners were given a guaranteed amount food, plus extra food for over-fulfillment of quotas2. From 1952 onward, the Gulag system operated upon “economic accountability” such that the more the prisoners worked, the more they were paid.3. For over-fulfilling the norms by 105%, one day of sentence was counted as two, thus reducing the time spent in the Gulag by one day.4. Furthermore, because of the socialist reconstruction post-war, the Soviet government had more funds and so they increased prisoners’ food supplies.5. Until 1954, the prisoners worked 10 hours per day, whereas the free workers worked 8 hours per day. From 1954 onward, both prisoners and free workers worked 8 hours per day.6. A CIA study of a sample camp showed that 95% of the prisoners were actual criminals.7. In 1953, amnesty was given to 70% of the “ordinary criminals” of a sample camp studied by the CIA. Within the next 3 months, most of them were re-arrested for committing new crimes.The following are excerpts of the CIA document, underlined and put together for the reader:These facts negate the narrative that Gulag prisoners were unpaid. The labour was indeed forced; however, material rewards were provided. The prisoners were paid from 1952 onward, and rewarded by food prior to 1952.According to bourgeois fantasies, the Soviet “regime” sought to deliberately starve the Gulag populations. However, as a matter of fact, there indeed were Soviet efforts to increase the food supply of prisoners, after World War II.The fact that the working day was only two hours more than that of the free workers until 1954, and equal to that of the free worker from 1954 onward is a clear demonstration of the egalitarian tendencies of the Soviet State.All the while, the noteworthy fact is that criminals, not “pro-democracy revolutionaries” were sent to the Gulags. Like all justice systems, there certainly were errors and some innocent people were sent to the prisons; the point though is that this fact has been exaggerated by the imperial press.Let’s compare the Soviet system to that of the United States. The 13th amendment permits prison slavery, with many prisoners victimized by racial profiling. Even the Clinton Dynasty had slaves in the Arkansas Province (News 2017).The NumbersAccording to page four of another CIA (1989) document titled “The Soviet Labour System: An Update,” the number of Gulag prisoners “grew to about 2 million” during Stalin’s time.These figures match Soviet statistics as well, from declassified Soviet achieves. The following is a 1954 declassified Soviet archival document (Pyakhov), an excerpt of which is translated into English:“During the period from 1921 to the present time for counterrevolutionary crimes were convicted 3,777,380 people, including to capital punishment – 642,980 people to the conent in the camps and prisons for a period of 25 years old and under – 2,369,220 into exile and expulsion – 765,190 people.“Of the total number of convicts, approximately convicted: 2,900,000 people – College of OGPU, NKVD and triples Special meeting and 877,000 people – courts by military tribunals, and Spetskollegiev Military Collegium.“It should be noted… that established by Decree … on November 3, 1934 Special Meeting of the NKVD which lasted until September 1, 1953 – 442,531 people were convicted, including to capital punishment – 10,101 people to prison – 360,921 people to exile and expulsion (within the country) – 57,539 people and other punishments (offset time in detention, deportation abroad, compulsory treatment) – 3,970 people…Attorney General R. RudenkoInterior Minister S. KruglovJustice Minister K. Gorshenin”The Soviet archives remained declassified for decades, only to be released near or after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In addition, after Stalin died, the pro-Stalin head of the NKVD (Soviet interior ministry) Lavrenty Beria had already been executed by Khrushchev, a staunch anti-Stalinist (History in an hour 2010). These facts make it very unlikely that the Soviet intelligence would have a pro-Stalin bias.The Italian-American historian Michael Parenti (1997, pp. 79-80) further analyzes the data provided from the Soviet archives:“In 1993, for the first time, several historians gained access to previously secret Soviet police archives and were able to establish well-documented estimates of prison and labor camp populations. They found that the total population of the entire gulag as of January 1939, near the end of the Great Purges, was 2,022,976. At about that time, there began a purge of the purgers, including many intelligence and secret police (NKVD) officials and members of the judiciary and other investigative committees, who were suddenly held responsible for the excesses of the terror despite their protestations of fidelity to the regime.“Soviet labor camps were not death camps like those the Nazis built across Europe. There was no systematic extermination of inmates, no gas chambers or crematoria to dispose of millions of bodies…. [T]he great majority of gulag inmates survived and eventually returned to society when granted amnesty or when their terms were finished. In any given year, 20 to 40 percent of the inmates were released, according to archive records. Oblivious to these facts, the Moscow correspondent of the New York Times (7/31/96) continues to describe the gulag as ‘the largest system of death camps in modern history’.“Almost a million gulag prisoners were released during World War II to serve in the military. The archives reveal that more than half of all gulag deaths for the 1934-53 period occurred during the war years (1941-45), mostly from malnutrition, when severe privation was the common lot of the entire Soviet population. (Some 22 million Soviet citizens perished in the war.) In 1944, for instance, the labor-camp death rate was 92 per 1000. By 1953, with the postwar recovery, camp deaths had declined to 3 per 1000.“Should all gulag inmates be considered innocent victims of Red repression? Contrary to what we have been led to believe, those arrested for political crimes (‘counterrevolutionary offenses’) numbered from 12 to 33 percent of the prison population, varying from year to year. The vast majority of inmates were charged with nonpolitical offenses: murder, assault, theft, banditry, smuggling, swindling, and other violations punishable in any society.”Thus, according to the CIA, approximately two million people were sent to the Gulag in the 1930s, whereas according to declassified Soviet archives, 2,369,220 up until 1954. When compared to the population of the USSR at the time, as well as the statistics of a country like the United States, the Gulag percent population in the USSR throughout its history was lower than that of the United States today or since the 1990s. In fact, based on Sousa’s (1998)research, there was a larger percentage of prisoners (relative to the whole population) in the US, than there ever was in the USSR:“In a rather small news item appearing in the newspapers of August 1997, the FLT-AP news agency reported that in the US there had never previously been so many people in the prison system as the 5.5 million held in 1996. This represents an increase of 200,000 people since 1995 and means that the number of criminals in the US equals 2.8% of the adult population. These data are available to all those who are part of the North American department of justice…. The number of convicts in the US today is 3 million higher than the maximum number ever held in the Soviet Union! In the Soviet Union, there was a maximum of 2.4% of the adult population in prison for their crimes – in the US the figure is 2.8% and rising! According to a press release put out by the US department of justice on 18 January 1998, the number of convicts in the US in 1997 rose by 96,100.”ConclusionSeeing the USSR as a major ideological challenge, the Western imperial bourgeoisie demonized Stalin and the Soviet Union. Yet after decades of propaganda, declassified archives from both the US and USSR together debunk these anti-Soviet slanders. Worth our attention is the fact that the CIA – a fiercely anti-Soviet source – has published declassified documents debunking the very anti-Soviet myths it promoted and continues to promote in the mainstream media. Together with declassified Soviet archives, the CIA files have demonstrated that the bourgeois press has lied about the Gulags.[2][2][2][2]Notes13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Abolition of Slavery. (n.d.). Retrieved August 28, 2018, from 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Abolition of SlaveryCentral Intelligence Agency (CIA). (1989). THE SOVIET FORCED LABOR SYSTEM: AN UPDATE (GI-M 87-20081). Retrieved February 12, 2018, http://fromhttps://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000500615.pdfCentral Intelligence Agency (CIA). (2010, February 22). 1. FORCED LABOR CAMPS IN THE USSR 2. TRANSFER OF PRISONERS BETWEEN CAMPS 3. DECREES ON RELEASE FROM FORCED LABOR 4. ATTITUDE OF SOVIET PRISON OFFICIALS TOWARD SUSPECTS 1945 TO THE END OF 1955. Retrieved January 5, 2018, from https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80T00246A032000400001-1.pdfHillary and Bill used ‘slave labour’. (2017, June 08). Retrieved June 10, 2017, from Hillary and Bill used ‘slave labour’Игорь, П. (n.d.). Книга: За что сажали при Сталине. Невинны ли «жертвы репрессий»? Retrieved August 28, 2018, from Книга: За что сажали при Сталине. Невинны ли "жертвы репрессий"?Parenti, M. (1997). Blackshirts and reds: Rational fascism and the overthrow of communism. San Francisco, Calif: City Lights Books.Sousa, M. (1998, June 15). Lies concerning the history of the Soviet Union. Retrieved August 27, 2018, from Lies concerning the history of the Soviet UnionThe Death of Lavrenty Beria. (2015, December 23). Retrieved August 31, 2018, from http://www.historyinanhour.com/2010/12/23/lavrenty-beria-summaryTracy, J. F. (2018, January 30). The CIA and the Media: 50 Facts the World Needs to Know. Retrieved August 28, 2018, http://fromhttps://www.globalresearch.ca/the-cia-and-the-media-50-facts-the-world-needs-to-know/5471956Footnotes[1] Natalya Reshetovskaya, 84, Is Dead; Solzhenitsyn's Wife Questioned 'Gulag'[1] Natalya Reshetovskaya, 84, Is Dead; Solzhenitsyn's Wife Questioned 'Gulag'[1] Natalya Reshetovskaya, 84, Is Dead; Solzhenitsyn's Wife Questioned 'Gulag'[1] Natalya Reshetovskaya, 84, Is Dead; Solzhenitsyn's Wife Questioned 'Gulag'[2] The Truth about the Soviet Gulag – Surprisingly Revealed by the CIA[2] The Truth about the Soviet Gulag – Surprisingly Revealed by the CIA[2] The Truth about the Soviet Gulag – Surprisingly Revealed by the CIA[2] The Truth about the Soviet Gulag – Surprisingly Revealed by the CIA

The Inquilinos of Cavite: A Social Class in Nineteenth-Century PhilippinesExtractStudies about Philippine colonial class structure are singularly scant. With the exception of Scott's work on the sixteenth century, no effort has yet been made to shed light upon the problem of how Philippine society had been stratified during the long span of the Spanish and American regimes. This paper tries to describe and analyze the manner in which a segment of nineteenth-century Philippine society was structured, and offers a conceptualization of what constituted a provincial “social class” at the time by looking at the role of the inquilino (leaseholders of agricultural land) in Caviteño society. Specifically, it (a) rejects the idea that native Filipino society was composed of only two social strata: a tiny upper stratum and a mass of uniformly poor population; (b) and implies that the native class structure was far from having been static during the Spanish regime. Due to limitations in the sources, no attempt has been made to trace in an evolutionary manner the development of the inquilinos as a social class. The study deals mainly with the Dominican hacienda town of Naic, although less detailed information on other municipalities like Imus, Bacoor, Kawit, Santa Cruz de Malabon, and San Francisco de Malabon suggest the existence of similar conditions that could have fostered the development of an intermediate social class composed largely of inquilinos.TypeArticlesInformationJournal of Southeast Asian Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 1985 , pp. 69 - 98DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022463400012777[Opens in a new window]CopyrightCopyright © The National University of Singapore 1985Access optionsGet access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.PurchaseBuy article£20Add to cartCheck accessInstitutional loginLog in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentialsLog inPersonal loginLog in with your Cambridge Core account or society details.Log inIf you should have access and can't see this content please contact technical support.References1Scott, William H., “Filipino Class Structure in the Sixteenth Century”, Philippine Studies 28 (1980): 142–75Google Scholar.2The province of Cavite is situated some sixty kilometers south of Manila, bounded on the south by the province of Batangas, and on the east by Laguna and Rizal. It faces Manila Bay to the north and China sea to the west. Topographically divided into lowland and upland regions, Cavite's heartland has been historically its lowland towns — the area covered in this study. Lowland Cavite, which was the focus of revolutionary upheaval in the 1890s, includes the triangular northern portion of the province that has for its base the towns of Ternate, Naic, Trece Martires, Dasmariñas, and Carmona (see map). In the late nineteenth century most of its population were tenant agriculturists of several monastic haciendas (landed estates) in the region; fishermen and saltmakers along its coastal rim; and workers in the government arsenal and shipyard at the Cabecera (provincial capital, otherwise also known as Cavite el Puerto).3The terms “social strata” (any hierarchical ordering of groups in society) and “social class”, defined below, are not synonymous but do overlap, the common denominator being usually economic considerations.4This paper is based upon an examination of archival sources and printed material. Most ethnographic information comes from being a native of the province and from personal interviews. A short version of this paper was read at the 9th Conference of the International Association of Historians of Asia, held in Manila on 21-25 November 1983.5Naic is a coastal town with a population of about 8000 in 1896. Before the revolution, nearly all its agricultural land belonged to the Dominicans, parcelled into farmplots rented to tenants called inquilinos. Together with other hacienda towns in lowland Cavite, Naic was mainly a producer of rice, supplemented by sugar and other staples. U.S., Sen. Doc. 280, 57th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 37; Borromeo, Soledad M., “El Cadiz Filipino: Colonial Cavite, 1571-1896” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1973), p. 78Google Scholar.6Bottomore, T.B., Classes in Modern Society (New York, 1966), p. 12Google Scholar.7No study about resident Spaniards in the colony has yet been made. Of the many studies about the Chinese in the Philippines, Wickberg's, EdgarThe Chinese in Philippine Life, 1850-1898 (New Haven, 1965), has been particularly usefulGoogle Scholar.8References to the mutual antipathy between European-born Spaniards (peninsulares) and Philippine born Spaniards (criollos) abound in Spanish colonial literature. Besides the usual prejudice against those born in the colony as being by nature inferior to peninsulares, this feeling of enmity has been mainly attributed to competition for government jobs. Mas, Sinibaldode, Secret Report of 1842 (Manila, 1963), III: 122-23, 125. Inspite of this in-fighting, these groups formed the upperclass of Spanish society.Google ScholarBlumentritt, Ferdinand, The Philippines: A Summary Account of Their Ethnological, Historical and Political Conditions (Chicago, 1900), pp. 32–33Google Scholar.9Salamanca, Bonifacio S., The Filipino Reaction to American Rule, 1901-1913 (Hamden, 1968), p. 12. Until the inclusion of Chinese mestizos into the native population in the 1880s, Philippine colonial society was legally separated into Spanish, Spanish mestizos; Chinese; Indios; and Chinese mestizos.Google ScholarWickberg, , The Chinese, pp. 140-41. Larkin, John, The Pampangans (Berkeley, 1972), p. 49.Google Scholar10Robertson, Alexander and Blair, Emma, The Philippine Islands (Cleveland, 1907), XVI: 121 (hereafter BR).Google ScholarPhelan's, JohnThe Hispanization of the Philippines: Spanish Aims and Filipino Responses, 1565-1700 (Madison, 1959), pp. 114–15. Scott, p. 146Google Scholar.11Phelan refers to it as a system of “dependency” since it “… lacked the harshness and brutality of European slavery”, a view not shared by other writers. Ibid., p. 22. Technically abolished in 1591, slavery appears t o have only gradually petered out in different parts of the colony since references to its continued practice recur in the sources, especially in relation to “men of color” brought in by the Portuguese. BR, XVI: 124, 157,163.12The concept of land as having a monetary value apparently dawned early upon the native élite resulting in considerable sales of communal land during the post-Conquest period. Cushner, Nicholas, “Meysapan: The Formation and Social Effects of a Landed Estate in the Philippines”, Journal of Asian History 7 (1973): 31–53Google Scholar.13Kasamás were tenant cultivators; jornaleros were day-workers.14Archivo de la Provincia del Santissimo Rosario (Dominican Archives, Manila; hereafter APSR), Naic, 1895-96, and Inquilinos Naic, 1891.15BR, XVI: 155. Although the term principalia originally referred to native officials and their families, Owen has noted various ways in which the term could have been used in later centuries to include persons who did not actually form part of the traditional native élite, e.g., persons of wealth, prestige, bearers of the title of Don, etc. Owen, Norman, “The Principalia in Philippine History: Kabikolan, 1790-1898”, Philippine Studies 22 (1974): 305Google Scholar.16These were chieftains of the traditional unit of native government, the pre-Spanish barangay.17Corpuz, Onofre, The Bureaucracy in the Philippines (Quezon City, 1957), p. 112Google Scholar.18Philippine National Archives (Manila; hereafter PNA), Cavite, leg. 75, nu. 54. PNA, Terrenos Cavite, lib. 1,1797-1898. PNA, Terrenos Cavite, lib. II, 1856-90.19Corpuz, p. 114. Robles, Eliodoro, The Philippines in the Nineteenth Century (Quezon City, 1969), pp. 81–83Google Scholar.20PNA, Cavite, leg. 75, 1774-1809, v. 1. A real = 1/8 peso. 21 Cushner, pp. 34-38.22Phelan, pp. 122-23. Foreman, John, The Philippine Islands (New York, 1899), p. 112Google Scholar. Taylor, John R.M., The Philippine Insurrection Against the United States (Pasay City, 1971), I: 13. Unlike the case of Pam-panga, archival records on Cavite's gobernadorcillos and cabezas are so meagre that it is not possible to trace continuities in the tenures of principalia familiesGoogle Scholar.23Larkin, p. 34.24The dátu-subject relationship, and those of various dependent groups with their owners were manifestations of clientele relations in pre-Spanish times. BR, XVI: 121-24. Rizal's annotation of Morga points to the basic similarity in the status of the pre-Spanish aliping namamáhay with the kasamás, the bataan (servant, commonly called today alilà, katulong), the kampon (followers), the taúhan (people), etc. Ibid., p. 122. His-panization reinforced the Filipino tendency towards this type of relationship through the institutionalization of the “compadre system”, exacerbated by a regime of paternal tutelage under the friars. Hart, Don V., Compadrinazgo: Ritual Kinship in the Philippines (Illinois, 1977); Taylor, 1:19, 25.Google Scholar25Ferrando, Juan, Historia de los pp. dominicos (Madrid, 1890), 1:60–61Google Scholar.26, Wickberg, The Chinese, p. 135. BR, XVII: 324-33Google Scholar.27Owen, p. 307.28PNA, Cavite, leg. 75, nu. 64.29PNA, Cavite, leg. 75, nu. 54.30Bernabe de España, “An Account of the Inspection of the Real Galera de Cavite, 5 Dec. 1865”, in Ayer Coll., Robles 154. Principalia imprisonment in this last case was more due to a minor shortcoming in the performance of their duties rather than a penalty for refusing to render communal service.31Población de filipinas. Censo generál … (Manila, 1883), pp. 4–5Google Scholar. Between 1815-81, Cavite's population increased by more than two-fold. APSR, “HCF”, fols. 1-29, and PNA, Cavite, 1881. To cope with the multitude of problems that beset local government during this time, the Maura Law was passed in 1893, which considerably enlarged the powers of gobernadorcillos (re-named capitanes municipales), improved the remuneration of cabezas, etc. The outbreak of the revolution prevented the full implementation of this law. Taylor, 1:121-45.32Población, pp. 4-5.33Ibid.34PNA, Cavite, “Queja sobre la election …”, [n.d.].35Wickberg, Edgar, “The Chinese Mestizo in Philippine History”, Journal of Southeast Asian History 5 (03, 1964): 62–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar.36Bacoor, 30 per cent; Imus, 21 per cent; San Roque-Cabecera, 18 per cent; Kawit, 16 per cent; Santa Cruz, 13 per cent; Rosario and Naic, 11 per cent each. My computation is based upon tribute figures for 1854 x4 (assuming the average size of a family was four), a standard procedure used by the Spaniards in estimating population. Guia de forasteros (Manila, 1854), p. 194Google Scholar.37, Wickberg, The Chinese, pp. 28–36Google Scholar.38Macmicking, Robert, Recollections of Manila and the Philippines During 1848, 1849, 1850 (London, 1852), pp. 101–2Google Scholar.39, Larkin, pp. 48-54. , Wickberg, The Chinese, p. 143. Recent studies on the subject of haciendas in colonial Philippines includeGoogle ScholarRoth, Dennis, The Friar Estates of the Philippines (Albuquerque, 1977), andGoogle ScholarCushner, Nicholas, Landed Estates in the Colonial Philippines (New Haven, 1976)Google Scholar.40, Wickberg, The Chinese, p. 136Google Scholar.41PNA, Mestizos Cavite, 1881-83, PNA, Cabezas Cavite, 1839-96.42The word timawà also meant freemen in pre-Conquest times but somehow it never lost the connotation of being poor. Rizal's annotation translates it to mean “in peace”, “free”. BR, XVI: 122.43PNA, Erecciones Cavite, leg. 75,1774-1809.44Melotti, Umberto, Marx and the Third World (London, 1977), p. 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.45From the Spanish correr meaning to run, since corredoras have to go from one place to another in their buying and selling activities.46APSR, Inquilinos Naic, 1891.47Cavada, Agusti'n de la, Historia géografica … (Manila, 1876), 1:33. Also, Ferrando, 1:34; BR, XVI: 124-25. A more contemporary statement on th e Filipino woman is Carmen Guerrero-Nakpil'sGoogle ScholarWoman Enough and Other Essays (Quezon City, 1963)Google Scholar.48Owen, p. 305.49Majiil, Cesar, “Principales, Ilustrados, Intellectuals and the Original Concept of Filipino National Community”, Asian Studies 15 (1977):11Google Scholar.50At the time, a status symbol dresser-clothes cabinet often made of narra wood.51This study draws essentially from the Weberian concept of social class as a status-income group with a common lifestyle, in contrast to the Marxian idea that takes into consideration the following: (a) its relation to the means of production; (b) its will to compete for political power to protect its economic interests; (c) possession of a class ideology. Jordan, Z.A., Karl Marx: Economy, Class and Social Revolution (Exeter, 1972), pp. 25, 30Google Scholar. The ideas of Sorokin and Schumpeter were also useful in th e conceptualization of social classes in Cavite. Bendix, Reinhard and Lipset, Seymour, Class, Status and Power (Glencoe, 1953)Google Scholar.52Doubtless there must have been poorer inquilinos who directly tilled their plots. However, descriptions of Caviteño inquilinos concern the non-cultivating type dealt with in this essay, indicating that the former could have been a small minority. All Caviteno inquilinos interviewed by the Taft Commission were non-cultivators. Bureau of Insular Affairs (U.S. National Archives, Washington, D.C.; hereafter BIA), Fourth Annual Report of the Philippine Commission (Washington, 1904), 1:186–98. The word inquilino is not to be confused with the institution of leasing and subleasing farm land in Cavite called the inquilinatoGoogle Scholar.53Tsetung, Mao, How to Differentiate the Classes in the Rural Areas (Peking, 1969)Google Scholar.54In the late 1800s these were the Recollects, the Dominicans, and the Agustinians. Borromeo, pp. 62-93.55The question of the exploitative nature of the inquilino-kasamá relationship is taken up below.56As in the Spanish vagamundo, this means a jobless drifter today.57PNA, Chinos Cavite, 1882. Delgado, Juan, Historia general de las islas filipinas (Manila, 1892), p. 42.Google ScholarZuniga, Joaquin Martinez de, Status of the Philippines in 1880 (Manila, 1973), pp. 248–49Google Scholar.58See Tables 2 and 7.59Middleclass Caviteño income was estimated as somewhere between that of the upper stratum (about 1000 pesos or more a year) and the kasamás, jomaleros (something like 60 pesos a year). The range of about 200-600 pesos yearly seems reasonable based upon sample incomes on Tables 2 and 7. This figure also coincides with the income bracket of those in the first column of Table 9. Kasamà income is discussed below; jornalero income was unstable but could have been similar to that of the kasamá if work was regularly available. Table 7.60Income from leaseholds varied according to size, quality of riceland, etc.61Macmicking, pp. 101-2. Lala, Ramon R., The Philippine Islands (New York, 1898), p. 199Google Scholar.62Guerrero, Rafael, Cronica de la guerra de cuba y la rebellion de filipinas, 1895-1897 (Barcelona, 1897), IV:22Google Scholar.63U.S., BIA, “Report of the Provincial Governor of Cavite, 1902”, 3222/6. Caván is a unit of rice measure = 64 liters.64Despite fluctuating rice prices, the price of rice increased only one per cent in a century. Zuñiga gives an idea of food prices ca. 1800 in Status, pp. 220-21.65Panggúinge is a card game popular among women at the time; buyo1is a mixture of betel leaf, nut, and lime.66PNA, Salarios Cavite, 1851, 1858. PNA, Memoria de Cavite, 1881. Census for the Philippine Islands, 1903 (Washington, 1905), IV:434–35Google Scholar.67The municipal centre, which usually includes a church, the tribunal house, the homes of the élite, a few stores, and a market. Hart, Don V., The Philippine Plaza Complex: A Focal Point in Culture Change (Syracuse, 1968), pp. 1–8, passimGoogle Scholar.68Scheidnagel, Manuel, Las colonias espaholes de asia: islas filipinas (Madrid, 1880), p. 54Google Scholar.69Bowring, John, A Visit to the Philippines (Manila, 1963), p.9Google Scholar.70Ibid., p. 70.71Scheidnagel, p. 54.72Delmas, E. Deverter, La insurrection de filipinas en 1896-1897 (Barcelona, 1899), 1:223Google Scholar.73, Lala, pp. 304-5. U.S., House Doc. 963, 61st Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 4Google Scholar.74Aguinaldo, Emilio, My Memoirs (Manila, 1967), p. 3Google Scholar.75Ibid., p. 16.76A conical piece of molten brown cane sugar.77Tables 7 and 9.78Table 7.79Macmicking, p. 61.80Yangco was a Chinese mestizo from Bacoor who did errands in the Cavite waterfront, saved enough money to buy a banca with which he transported people and zacate (fodder) from Cavite to Manila and became the biggest shipper of his time. Manuel, Arsenio, Dictionary of Philippine Biography (Quezon City, 1955), 1:481–83Google Scholar.81Table 7; also PNA, Terrenos Cavite, lib. II, 1856-90. The ancestral house of the Cuenca family still stands along calle Real (main street) in Bacoor.82Fernandez, Ventura Lopez, El filibustero (Manila, 1892), pp. 87–88Google Scholar.83Bendix and Lipset, p. 77.84David Barrows noticed that the relations between different classes in the Philippines were “kindly”, generally not antagonistic. U.S., Sen. Doc. 331,57th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 686.85This behavioural-attitudinal complex is so deeply-rooted and common-place in Cavite that it must have been a part of Caviteffo mentality for as long as the barrio-bayan dichotomy has been there.86Interview with MrBacoor, Jose Gazo of, 1 06 1983Google Scholar.87Barong tagalog and camisa de chino are men's shirts made of native fiber; barò at saya means blouse and skirt, the former featuring stiff butterfly sleeves; zapatillas are ladies' footwear.88These may be gleaned from the novels of José Rizal.89The same set of pictures are reproduced in Borromeo, pp. 129-32.90Some writers have used these terms interchangeably. Majul has correctly noted that many ilustrados descended from principalia families. Majul, “Principales …”, p. 12; also Guerrero, Milagros C., “Luzon at War: Contradictions in Philippine History, 1899-1902” (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1977), p. 235. Nevertheless, historically and conceptually, there are important enough differences between the two terms which make them far from synonymous as will be explained belowGoogle Scholar.91Ilustrados have also been referred to as the native upperclass or middleclass.92Secularization of education meant that for the first time higher education was no longer limited to preparation for priesthood and primary education undertaken by the state. BR, XLVI:76-118.93This was a campaign for reforms which preceded the revolution against Spain led by Filipino expatriates in Europe and Asia. Its aims are summarized in Kalaw, Maximo, The Development of Philippine Politics, 1872-1920 (Manila, 1922), p. 41Google Scholar.94The Rizal family is an example; in Cavite there were the Inocencios, Basas, and Osorios.95Corpuz, p. 117.96Kalaw, pp. 53-56.97, Majúl, “Principales”, pp. 13,18. Some writers argue that ilustrado reforms would have ultimately benefited their own “bourgeois” interests.Google ScholarFast, Jonathan and Richardson, Jim, Roots of Dependence (Quezon City, 1979), pp. 56–65Google Scholar.98Kalaw, p. 77. Agoncillo, Teodoro, The Revolt of the Masses (Quezon city, 1956), pp. 109–13Google Scholar.99Rizal was shot by a Spanish firing squad; Marcelo H. Del Pilar and Graciano Lopez Jaena died in Barcelona, poor and disillusioned. Shortly before his death, Del Pilar accepted the idea of revolution and favoured the Katipunan. Kalaw, pp. 47,69-70.100As a true ilustrado, Rizal favoured the moral and intellectual cultivation of his people before achieving freedom. Ibid., pp. 57-60,66-67. Others like Mabini and Emilio Jacinto held basically the same ideas, as if to suggest that in spite of their desire for independence, Filipinos still had a long way to go in fulfilling the requisites of nationhood. Majul, Cesar, The Political and Constitutional Ideas of the Philippine (New York, 1974), pp. 19–39. To say that Rizal was not completely free of his ilustrado prejudices is one thing, and quite another to assert that his objection to the revolution was due to his preoccupation with the interests of his class. Fast and Richardson, pp. 56-65Google Scholar.101Salamanca, p. 17.102Fast and Richardson, p. 64.103Nava, Jose, The Thirteen Martyrs of Cavite (Manila, 1940), pp. 1–14Google Scholar. See Aguinaldo's own statement the subject in his Memoirs, p. 82.104Manuel, 1:241, 263,296-97,356.105Salamanca, pp. 17-19, Constantino, Renato, The Making of the Filipino: A Study in Philippine Colonial Politics (Quezon City, 1969), pp. 11–12Google Scholar.106The Malolos Constitution created a strong legislature designed to insure ilustrado predominance. Salamanca, pp. 18-19,209.107Ibid., p. 19.108APSR, Naic, 1895-96.109Tables 3,4, and 8 are appended.110APSR, Naic, 1891.111Sen. Doc. 280, p. 37.112There were proportionately more former inquilinos in these towns who bought/leased farm land in 1902, House Doc. 963, pp. 4–9Google Scholar.113Jordan, p. 30.114, Majúl, The Political, pp. 71–73Google Scholar.115Mordan, p. 29.116APSR, Telesforo Canseco, “Historia de la revolution filipina en Cavite, 1896”, mss., pp. 29,64Google Scholar.117Ibid. He probably meant the cédula personal and the contributión industrial which replaced the tribute in the 1880s. , Wickberg, The Chinese, p. 140Google Scholar.118Tiendas are market stalls; a calesa is a carriage.119Canseco, p. 29.120Quoted in , Majúl, The Political, p. 131Google Scholar.121Milagros C. Guerrero, p. 100.122Mabini, Apolinario, La revolution filipina (Manila, 1931), I: 111Google Scholar.123Taylor, V:47.124House Doc. 963, p. 4Google Scholar.125Tables 5 and 6 are derived from PNA, Cavite, 1884. Population figures for Bacoor and Kawit were divided by two since half of their inhabitants lived on fishing an d saltmaking. Note that population estimates during the Spanish regime were seldom accurate since these were based upon tribute counts furnished by the local priest. Population figures were probably higher than reported because bagamundos and privileged groups were not included.126Roth, pp. 133-34. Only the towns of Malolos and Lolomboy are comparable with the above since their nutritional densities as given by Roth correspond to about the same time.127Eight chupas = 1 ganta, 25 gantas = 1 cavan. Computing nutritional densities by subtracting landrent from total palay production and then dividing the remainder by the population eliminates the problem of ascertaining yield per hectare since it varies according to the type of riceland used. Although Martinez de Zuñiga says that landrent was usually 5 caváns per cavan of seed planted (corrected by Roth as 6.25 cavans) in most of Cavite landrent averaged 30 per cent of the harvest. Roth, p. 139; PNA, Cavite, 1881; PNA, Cavite, leg. 75,1774-1809, v. 1.128Computation of the average size of leaseholds in lowland Cavite was based upon data from the Censo de las islas filipinas … 1877 (Madrid, 1883), and Cavada, I: 172. The total amount of cultivated land in lowland Cavite was divided by the total number of cultivators (both types of inquilinos and kasamds included) in that part of the province. The number of lowland cultivators was determined by (a) establishing the ratio of lowland family heads to total provincial family heads in all the agricultural towns of the province and then (b) multiplying this ratio (.56) by the total number of cultivators in Cavite: 14566. Thus, 14241 -s-25198 =.56 x 14566 = 8157; 8783 - 8157 = 1.08 hectares per cultivator. Cultivated area in the lowlands was determined on the basis of the upland-lowland crop dichotomy in Cavite. Certain assumptions had to be made i n view of meagre statistics: that (a) most lowland family heads were cultivators, excluding the population of the San Roque-Cabecera area, and half of those from Bacoor and Kawit; (b) except for a very negligible percentage, practically all lowland cultivators were tenants of the friars and nearly all cultivated land in the area was friarland. Yield per hectare was based upon the statements of several inquilinos from Imus in the early 19th century and those given to the Taft Commission. PNA, leg. 75,1774-1809, v.l; Fourth Annual, I: 186-98Google Scholar.129Giving allowances for a possible inquilino bias, the Bunzalan interview was used, which elucidates on a 3-way partition of harvest between landlord, inquilino, and kasamá. The Taft interviews indicate that planting and harvesting expenses were borne either solely by the inquilino or shared with the kasamá.130The evidence is conflicting but it seems that two harvests were possible in Cavite's irrigated ricelands. Ibid.; Census 1903, IV: 93.131In Bacoor, Kawit, and Santa Cruz de Malabon leaseholds were under one hectare inspite of reported expansion in cultivated areas between 1881-84. PNA, Cavite, 1881; PNA, Cavite, 1884. The generally small size of Cavite's cultivated farms is confirmed in the Census 1903, IV: 180Google Scholar.132Roth's opposite view on the inquilino-kasamá relationship is based upon facts relating to the Hacienda de Pandi (Bulacan); Roth, p. 131. It is worth noting that peasant unrest did not flare up in Cavite during the revolution the way it did elsewhere in Luzon. Tension was observed in some towns in Cavite only during the late revolutionary period because of uncertainties over these farm leases after the Revolutionary Government had confiscated the friarlands. Milagros C. Guerrero, pp. 83-84, 124,135, 216-17.133These are very distant barrios close to the rice fields.134Lynch, Frank, comp, S. J.,. Four Readings on Philippine Values (Quezon City, 1964), pp. 15–17,22-49. To underestimate the effects of these values upon inquilino-kasamá relationships in Cavite is to ignore the realities of Southern Tagalog behavioural patternsGoogle Scholar.135Barrows testified on the incidence of social mobility in the native population in the early 1900s. He claimed that the “gente baja ” (those of the lower stratum) were “not without ambition” and that Filipino parents mak e every effort towards “social betterment”. By admitting that social mobility was a fact of the Philippine social system, Barrows implied that an intermediate stratum did exist between the very rich and the very poor population inspite of his erroneous impression of a two-tiered Filipino class structure at the time. Sen. Doc. 331, pp. 685-36.136Early Spanish writers commented on this Filipino trait. BR, XVI: 79; Taylor, 1:11; also Lynch, pp.18, 74-86.137Wilkes, Charles, Travel Accounts of the Islands (Manila, 1974), p. 52Google Scholar.138Marx, Karl, Capital (Moscow, 1960). 1:352Google Scholar.139The effort to minimize the anti-friar sentiments of Caviterños in connection with the revolution is contradicted by (a) Aguinaldo's proclamation, which vehemently denounced the friars and their landed possessions, [See APSR, “Aguinaldo's Proclamation, 7 July 1897”]; (b) the rapid spread of Aglipayanism in such towns as Imus and Bacoor because of intense anti-friar attitudes among their inhabitants. U.S., BIA, “Report of the Provincial Governor, Cavite, 1903”, 3222/13; John Shumacher, S.J., “The Religious Character of the Revolution in Cavite, 1896-1897”, Philippine Studies 24 (1976): 410–13Google Scholar.140Besides ousting the Spaniards, the only other significant result of the revolution was the formation of the Philippine Independent Church (PIC) whose membership did not exceed three million at its peak. It has since then lost much of its support. The PIC, also known as the Aglipayan Church, is just one of several minority religious groups in the Philippines today, a country that remains predominantly Roman Catholic. Mary Dorita Clifford, B.V.M., “Iglesia Filipina Independiente” in Studies in Philippine Church History, ed. Anderson, Gerald H., (Ithaca, 1969), pp. 247,251Google Scholar.141Taylor, IV: 309-16.142Roth, p. 1; House Doc. 963, pp. 4-9.143U.S., BIA, “Report on the Establishment of Civil Government in Cavite, 4 July 1901”; “List of the Present Municipal Officers of … Cavite Province, 1901”.

Because too many in America are quick to only go by what they think, what the media feeds them, and don’t have any clue about reality, rather than question everything the media feeds them. I personally don’t fear C-19 because I’m informed. I’ve traveled a bit (not 1/2 of what several friends & family have done), and enjoy meeting new people, picking their brains, learning about their culture, trying to understand them, and why they believe what they do. I’d also say I’m not the smartest guy that I know, but as an educator, I read a lot. Also encourage my students to stay current on national & worldwide events (so I have to keep up with all of them combined), to consider at other viewpoints, look at the science (as well as the politics and history) behind different ideologies, & I personally enjoy looking at compiled statistics (altho I’m no statistician, and the actual compiling is too tedious for me). Also, I actually am “protecting myself” from the virus, but do not blindly follow the blatantly false narratives of the news media.The FBI’s data for 2017 (obviously, there’s no complete, published 2020 data yet, so I’ll try to stick to 2017 numbers across the board) reported 7,694,086 property crimes that year, 1,401,840 burglaries, and 1,247,321 violent crimes (included in that number were 15,192 deaths by firearm… which is not a whole lot higher than the 13,840 fire-related deaths & injuries the same year, but quite a bit lower than the 40,231 traffic deaths).However, the Bureau of Justice Statistics stated that there were actually 2,538,170 Household Burglaries (because only ~49% were reported) and 10,285,240 Other Thefts in the same year. (With a 95% confidence rate in the higher number.)Currently, the CDC has reported 174,645 deaths from C-19 (as of 8/22/2020… preceding link will have updated numbers as the days go by)… and according to their published numbers that is a 97% survivability rate. (On a side-note, I know over 200 people that have had it… all around the country… and refused to get tested… but they had all the symptoms, so I’m pretty sure that 97% survivability rate is on the low side.) The majority of reported deaths were people with pre-existing conditions, the elderly, or both. The CDC also reported the 2017 flu had 61,000 deaths (affecting the same demographic), and the Spanish flu of 1918 had a mortality rate in the US of 675,000 (which primarily affected the healthy under 5, 20–40, & 65+).All that means (as of today) is violent crimes, home invasions, and other crimes are over 5,900% more likely to happen to any American in an average year than death from the C-19 virus. (Another, un-related side-note: even if the Spanish Flu were to happen this year and kill the same number as 1918, the probability of a violent crime, home invasion, or other crime happening to any individual would still be over 3,000% more likely than dying from the Spanish flu.)I’ll come back to this later, but in light of those numbers, it seems a bit naive to me if someone has NOT done something to attempt to thwart (or prepare for) violent crimes, burglaries, and property crimes… even if it’s just getting a Ring doorbell or a medium- to large-size dog… everyone should do something.Moving over to masks, up until 2020 started, every study I found on the effectiveness of using masks showed no cloth or N-95 mask was very effective in stopping the spread of germs & diseases (if spread by droplets or aerosolized particles); they mentioned that they were responsible only for slowing the spread of anything, rather than effective to stop the spread. Yes, I know hospitals use them for pretty much everything (even TB)… I do have a lot of medical-professional buddies off whom I bounce questions, but there were studies (again, prior to the C-19 breakout) that stated using a plastic face-shield was much more effective (unless using them together, which was recommended, or a higher grade of mask). However, since C-19 started I’ve found many “studies” touting both cloth masks & N-95 masks… claiming those masks are now (miraculously) highly effective in stopping things that they could not stop (or they were very poor in stopping) just 9 months ago. That’s why I highly doubt the objectivity & truth of these recent studies. I’ve read the data on several that claim to have used several hundred people, but deeper into the study they admit they actually used only 1 or 2 people for their study (and they’d counted how many people came in contact with the 1 or 2… to come up with the “several hundred” number… rather than the old way of counting thousands that had contact “with a minimum of X others”). Sadly, a lot of these recent studies even mention having no “control” group… yet are still calling their work “clinical research” or a “surveillance study.” Publishing anything with no control group and 2 people in contact with under 200 others each is shoddy. Studying only 1 or 2 people shouldn’t be called “clinical research” or a “surveillance study,” because it’s actually just a “case report” (or a “hypothesis sample,” which should determine the direction of the planning stage of the clinical research study). Almost all of the “studies” conducted earlier than the C-19 craze required thousands of participants and a large control group… or no other medical professionals would recognize that work as legitimate. There are several good papers on what constitutes accepted protocols for conducting and publishing studies, I like this published paper at NCBI (2016) because it’s written in fairly plain language and is fairly comprehensive for such a short paper. In discussing how to calculate the number of subjects in a good study, it states,“The entire source from which the data are obtained is called a universe or population. A small group selected from a certain universe based on certain rules and which is accepted to highly represent the universe from which it is selected is called a sample and the characteristics of the population from which the data are collected are called variables.” — (Italics were from the paper, bold was added by me.)Most of the 2020 mask “studies” fail to “highly represent” the universe from which they’ve been selected (total US population), and consequently, the error probability of much of the current mask research is high.In spite of this, I still wear a mask, but the primary reason I wear my mask when I’m not sick is due to the county-wide mandate to do so. (I spent time in Japan during my HS years, so it seems perfectly sane to wear a mask when I am sick. Completely ridiculous to wear a mask when someone else is sick tho… the data is not there to prove the efficacy of masks on everyone. Maybe by 2023 there will be decent data one way or the other. )However, just because I discount the legitimacy of many recent mask studies, only wear masks because I’m forced to, and recognize death from the C-19 virus is only a very small possibility, that does not mean I’m not taking steps to protect myself from the virus. In addition to my “old fart” daily supplement, I take 1,000–2,000mg of timed-release vitamin C twice a day (with zinc), echinacea, & D3 (plus selenium & saw palmetto for “mens’ issue” prevention), I don’t go out if I don’t need to, I stay away from others that are sick, and I carry a bottle of hospital grade cleaner inside the door of my vehicles that kills all known pathogens on contact. (Most people cannot get this cleaner; I got a couple of cases of it from a lab that did extensive AIDS research when I was working as a biomedical technician.) I spray it on every gas pump I use and let it sit for a minimum of 30 seconds before I use that pump. (The next guy will have a nice clean pump too.) When I get back to my vehicle after shopping I also spray it on my hands. If any store I enter looks dirty, then I’ll also spray the soles of my shoes after leaving (right before I step into my vehicle). If I feel any symptoms of sickness, I stay home &/or wear a mask until they go away (more on this later). I feel these few steps are more than sufficient measures to lower my risk of infection, the risk to my immediate family, & that I’m not contributing to the spread of any disease.I actually do know many people that have contracted C-19 (got a positive test result); most were fine in 2 weeks without treatment, some said they lost their taste, smell, or both. A few friends said they felt like they were going to die, while my neighbor had to wear a defibrillator vest for 3 weeks (it restarted his heart 4 times that I know of). Also know of 9 (family of very close friends) that have died (4 in other countries), but no one I know first-hand has actually died. More importantly, I know my DR has been successfully treating the C-19 virus since early April using a deep infrared sauna (with slightly elevated, but not hypoxic CO2 levels during treatment). He’s had a 100% success rate so far: no side effects, no pneumonia afterward, & no recurrences. I’ve recommended him to everyone I know with symptoms, and nearly all testing positive have gone to get his treatment. I have several friends working in large hospitals here that have his number and they’ve already told him they’re going to see him immediately if they get anything more than a runny nose. What Doc does, is… if anyone goes right in for a treatment as soon as a sore throat, sniffle, or other flu-like symptom manifests… he’ll prescribe them one 15-minute treatment and they go home (that’s with no C-19 test; has worked for “regular flu” diagnoses & colds as well). If OTOH, they’ve received a positive C-19 test result and are mild or asymptomatic, then he prescribes two (to three) 15-minute treatments based on the severity of symptoms and time since symptoms first occurred. He’ll go up to four 15-minute treatments for acute cases (those near death), but very few have needed four. I’ve contacted numerous influential people in the news media, our local govt, DRs, local hospitals, even the CDC, but no one so far has wanted to hear anything about it, none have wanted to come view his treatments, or even read a copy of his data. When I press them, most admit it’s because there are no drugs or vaccines, nothing is able to be patented, and the treatment is inexpensive ($35/treatment). YT & FB have taken down every link, video, and paper he’s attempted to post… even tho they’ve been clearly labeled “clinical study” or “experimental C-19 treatment.” (I recommended to Doc that when he publishes he does it both in the US and in Sweden. Pretty sure if he doesn’t, then all of his research will be confiscated, and he’ll be put under a gag order.) According to his eqpt supplier, he’s the only one using this treatment right now, so if you want it, you’ll either have to fly to Broward County, Florida or buy a unit yourself (~$500). So, no… I’m not worried at all about contracting C-19… at least not any more than I would be getting the regular flu or a cold.I’m not “afraid” of a home invasion either, but I have some preparation for one (and not all of my defense layers will ever be posted online). Primary preparation is carrying one or more condition-1 firearms, pretty much everywhere… as long as I’m not in the shower (or in any legally restricted gun-free zone when I leave my home). Secondarily, I’ve prepared by installing hurricane windows and doors… the windows are bullet-proof straight-on at close range… there are deadbolts (even tho you only see 1 from outside), and all of the door jambs aren’t just sitting in place (with short nails or screws), they’re set deep in the concrete with 6″ tapcons. (Other than the windows, all of these are fairly easy and inexpensive preparations anyone could do in a weekend.) The third (and most important) layer of defense was teaching my entire family gun safety (first) & how to skillfully handle firearms. None of the kids have horsed-around, or “played” with firearms or other weapons; they recognize firearms as tools and treat them with respect. I teach them gun safety at a young age with Nerf- (when they’re young and more apt to play with a weapon), then airsoft-, & finally BB-guns. After they’re knowledgeable in gun safety, they’ve matured, and shown significant responsibility, then I’ll put them in a controlled environment (gun range with a single round in revolvers, rifles, & then semi-automatic handguns, etc.) to teach them proficiency with the tools available in our home… and only those tools that a rational person would think they can operate safely at their age (primarily .22lr rounds… until they’re adult-sized and big enough to handle a 9mm).Did that because I had to stop 2 home invasions myself (wasn’t hard, simply had firearms close at hand & knew how to use them). Was ~8yo the first time and ~10yo the second. Both times the cops said (based on what had been happening in that area) the probability was better than 90% that they’d have raped my mom & sister, then killed all 3 of us, robbed the house, and left our bodies for dad to find when he got home. That was a long time ago, and the world isn’t any better. Since I’ve stopped home invasions, I know they happen. Have also had several friends experience them, most successfully stopped them, a few just survived them (one “survivor” was physically abducted at knife-point, tied up, terrorized, and held for several hours… she still has extremely bad PTSD).Based on my experience and that of my friends, I feel it would be much better to teach gun safety (not gun operation) to all kids in school than it is to keep all guns under lock and key all the time. Yes, I know guns aren’t accessible in a safe or under lock and key, so they can’t be used, but that’s part of the problem. Several of my “home invasion survivor” friends had their guns locked in a gun safe at the start of the home invasion… because they were afraid to have a firearm out of the safe with the possibility of a “tween” or teen seeing the weapon. It would be much better to teach the kids the how & why of gun safety in elementary school, that they are not toys, that friends & loved ones can die if you mess around with them, and get most of the kids in schools over the fascination with real guns… or the idea that since all real guns are locked up, every gun you find will be a toy gun someone lost.Had 2 cousins shoot family members because their anti-gun parents lived in an anti-gun city, in an anti-gun county, and thought that telling their kids, “guns are bad” was enough to keep everyone safe. It wasn’t. The 3yo cousin (nearly 4yo) thought he found a toy gun in a nail bin, pulled it out, pointed at his dad, and pulled the trigger (his dad didn’t live to see the ambulance). The 12yo cousin (different part of the family, but the same town) thought he found a toy gun in a creek and did nearly the same thing, but killed his best friend (big brother) instead. All-around pretty devastating for the family.As a result, my dad thought it would be better to teach me to be responsible and to have a grasp of the basics of gun safety at a young age. Was a good thing he did: when I was ~8yo, & saw a car-full of scary-looking guys coming down our driveway, with my mom (who didn’t know how to get the safety off or shoot well), we were able to run them off. The 2nd time (~10yo) was a van-full of scruffy guys that actually made it to my porch, started pounding on our front door to break it down… it was just me and my little sister at home for 10 min while my parents ran to the nearest convenience store. If my dad hadn’t left me a 12 gauge (used that the 2nd time) or a handgun (used that the 1st time, but also had one with me the 2nd time too… in case they got thru the door), then I wouldn’t have been able to use a firearm to drive off the criminals, my dad would’ve been a widower before 30, and my mom, sister, & I would have been no more than a sad statistic today.IMO, if a kid isn’t responsible and mature, they still need to learn gun safety, however, they shouldn’t have access to any firearm, or be taught how to operate them. (The US would be a much better place if everyone knew the finality of screwing around with a firearm.) Also don’t think people with serious mental issues should have access to firearms, either. (Have close family members that gave their firearms to others in the family to hold when they realized they were depressed; smart move IMO.) Lastly (& I’m sure this one will be controversial) I think there is a whole new test that should be created and given to concealed carrying firearms owners: All conceal-carry permits should be nationwide (like a driver’s license), but after the teaching on gun safety and before a permit could be issued (and right before every renewal) there should be a mandatory urine test for illegal & non-prescription substances. If anyone fails that drug test, then they should be put on 2-week probation, & re-tested (blood test the 2nd time)… if they fail the 2nd, they should be restricted from carrying firearms for 6mo (receiving another drug test at both 3mo and 6mo). If they fail either of those, they should have to get all firearms out of the house for 3 years… and have drug tests every 3 mo for the duration of that 3-years (re-setting the 3-year clock for every failed drug test).I also think the US would be a better place if we had similar restrictions for those with a first offense DUI, a domestic abuse case (proven, not just claimed), & sexual abuse cases, etc. (on that note… after passing a gun safety class & drug test, the abused spouse should be allowed to purchase & concealed carry a firearm for self-defense regardless of their state.) The abusing spouse should be required to store their firearms away from their home either with a relative or friend (who will be subject to the same amount of jail time for whatever crime the abuser commits against the abused spouse with that stored weapon), or the local PD, or a gunshop for a 3-year minimum after their offense (if it included no jail time).My thinking is, if it’s federal, everyone has to have the same level of safety training as well as the illegal substance tests… and losing firearms for non-weapons offenses: if someone is so irresponsible as to endanger the lives of others (DUI), then on the 2nd offense, they should lose their carry permit for 3 more years, and on the 3rd, no longer be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. If they’re a ticking time-bomb behind the wheel of a car, then they probably will be with a weapon too. Those serving time for any abuse, violent crimes, or weapons-related crimes (murder, rape, robbery, home invasion, assault, etc.) should also not be allowed to have guns in the home for at least 10 years after their release (with random drug tests), unless the victim(s) petitions for a waiver… and there is irrefutable evidence of a changed life. I also feel that any household in which all of the members have passed gun safety classes should be exempted (in all states) from locking up all the firearms that aren’t in the direct possession of someone using the firearm (i.e. gun racks in homes with responsible, mature, trained kids would be fine), unless a non-tested individual came over to visit (which would seem to be common sense to me). Another side-note… also think it would be nice if those standard weapons lost to forfeiture could be made available for abuse victims for free (first), then to schools, 4-H Clubs, and Boy- & Girl-Scouts (places with gun clubs for kids), and any exotic, or left-over firearms could be sold and the proceeds go to whatever the voters in each county deemed a “worthy” cause.I’ve looked for recent data on firearms stolen annually in an attempt to determine the validity of the “lock up all firearms because hundreds of thousands are stolen every year” (I’ve heard people say they’re stolen to commit crimes), but the most up-to-date report I can find is from the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2010 and it really doesn’t indicate that theory holds much weight either. It does, however, denote a clear annual downtrend in firearms stolen annually since the mid-1990s (firearms stolen annually was under 150,000 by 2010) and that most of the thefts are taking place in roughly the same percentages of where the most population resides (~55% of the US population is found in suburban areas, and they had ~50% of the property crimes & burglaries, the difference was split between urban and rural areas).Another unfounded statement that annoys me is when people try to tell me that firearms deaths in the “under 18” bracket is in the tens of thousands annually. The FBI’s data has that clearly available to anyone willing to look thru all of their tables and take some note: of the 17,251 firearms-related offenses (not only murder) in 2017, only 803 of those were committed by someone under 18. Of the 15,129 that were murdered in the same year, only 1,208 were under 18 (680 killed with a firearm). The kicker: how many under 18yo victims were killed by under 18yo offenders? that would be a grand total of 85. The “children victimizing children with firearms” scenario doesn’t hold water. Suicide prevention needs much more attention than preventing kids from learning gun safety. It’s the 2nd leading cause of death (after accidents) in 10 to 18-year-olds; it’s much higher (2,381) than total homicides (1,358) in the same report (didn’t have homicides with firearms in that one).In our house, guns are mainly just tools. Over the years I’ve had to grab a gun many times to run out and shoot poisonous snakes & rabid animals that were threatening livestock, pets, family, and neighbors. I’ve also driven thru fields to find my cows down on the ground with broken bones… once with a debilitating gunshot to the abdomen (that one really irked me). If I don’t have a gun on me when something like this happens, then I generally toss my keys to whichever of my kids is riding along (as young as 10) and send them back to the house with the truck to get a fully loaded 9mm, .45, or .44, so I can put the suffering animal down without causing it more pain & anguish (I prefer to stay and calm the animal as best as possible while someone else goes for the weapon… and I usually ask them to return with a backhoe to bury it). I get ludicrous responses when telling this to others…Many people have tried to say something about how it’s “different” for me “living out in the country” or because I’m “living out west” but… I don’t. I’m in Broward County Florida; the 17th most populated county in the US. In 20–25 min I can drive to downtown Ft. Lauderdale, downtown Miami, or out into the Everglades. (The infamous “Liberty City riots” were actually about 15 minutes from my door, but thankfully that happened before I moved down.) So no… it is not “much different here” and I’m not “in the country,” I just happen to have a small farm in a densely populated area and my kids are mature and responsible for their age because I taught them to be.As for blindly supporting Trump across the board… I don’t. He wasn’t very my last choice of everyone that was running as an independent or as a Republican (Jeb…cough…my former governor… gag), but he was pretty close. (Not one of the Democrats seemed like a sensible option even next to Jeb.) I’m not a die-hard Republican Christian… I’m just a God-fearing, pro-life, anti-socialist. The (D), (I), & (R) labels aren’t relevant to me. If a candidate fails either of the 2nd or 3rd categories above, then they don’t get my vote; if they fail the first, then at least I know what I’m dealing with.I’m pro-life because I’m pro-science. If I want to know something, I find good books on the subject and teach myself… for example: baby brains start developing around the 3rd week while the heartbeat is detectable between 5–1/2 to 7 weeks. If someone has a brain and a pulse, I consider them human, with their own right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.I’m anti-socialist because I’ve got a lot of Cuban, Romanian, Venezuelan, and Russian friends that have told me exactly what their lives were like living under a Communist regime. I don’t want to see the US going anywhere near socialism, communism, fascism, etc. Personally, I think that anyone that supported Bernie (or an equivalent candidate… for any public office) should voluntarily go live in Venezuela (which was the 4th largest oil producer in the world, before Chavez… and only if Maduro is still in power), or Cuba, or North Korea… for at least 2 years, so they can experience a “true” socialist or communist society. (If they aren’t willing to experience true socialism or communism, then they aren’t being honest about their ideology.) After their first 2 years in a socialist, or communist country, then they can either decide to stay in that country (if they’re still socialists), or come back here and vote with their brain rather than support that failed ideology… socialism is anti-Constitution.Getting back to Trump, I’ve not been impressed with very many of his pre- or post-Presidential actions (have been with Pence tho, that guy is a class act), except that he does do the unexpected. Sometimes I laugh, other times I smack my head, and sometimes he surprises me with something good. On a personal level, Trump appears to be an OK guy if he’s your friend. He’s not really got much else going for him personally, except that he’s doing what he believes is best for America & supports our veterans, and those are things I support & respect.Administratively, since Trump does have a firm grasp of business principles, I’d love to see how America could really take off if we cleaned out the career politicians that have been camping in DC for decades and put in some business owners to make our country run more efficiently. I really can’t imagine why anyone would want to vote for a President, Senator, Representative, Governor, or Mayor that’s never held any job except that of a lawyer or politician? & what modern-day career politician has even the smallest inkling of how to make a business profitable? Most Americans that have started their own business (or even managed someone else’s business) know that it’s simple to start out: cut costs, don’t give away the store, and make sure there’s no “dead-wood” taking a paycheck for doing nothing. I would think that this one thing (of knowing how to make a business profitable) would be more important for regular Americans to see in a candidate than someone who promises to give out free phones, or free money to people that are not working (& not looking for a job), or trying to pay for the medical bills of illegal immigrants (or people that have shot themselves up with drugs for years). If we had more business-minded people in Congress than activists, then we’d have a shot at getting our country out of debt.Most of the things I like about Trump’s Presidency so far I’ve heard echoed by other church-going people. I (and nearly all of them to whom I’ve spoken) not only dislike his pre-presidential personal life… but also will tell you that right away. The main administrative things I like are: he’s trying to improve the economy, decrease federal spending, lower taxes, cut out the dead-wood in the federal govt., and he’s doing that for a $1 paycheck. No President in recent history can say all of that.