It’s already obvious that technology is detrimentally important to the world, but how it impacts society may be greater than we can even comprehend. One might ask how this is so. Well, when a nation is thriving and prosperous, its people start thinking in a different mind set. With this being said, there’s a term that applies to this state of thought. Ethnocentrism– or the actions and behavior of a society thinking they’re better than other nations– would apply nicely here. This sociological term is a very logical way to see how a society changes from technology. With new-found knowledge and a better understanding of science, people feel more intelligent and feel above everyone else. If this term, ethnocentrism, is applied to an entire nation, the country’s hostility can increase very quickly. Technology isn’t always a bad thing; we just make it that way.

Technological advances not only affect societies, but culture as well, and the difference is rather easy to understand. Society is the people, cultures are things. Technology falls more under material culter on account technology makes things. These material objects benefit a nation greatly with things like transportation, mass production, and military advancements. During the nineteenth-century (1800’s), the American and Europeans were under way. With new and improved machinery, economies flourished and more people got more of what they needed. This made nations feel ready for anything because of how their culture was influenced by technology. They weren’t necessarily wrong to think this way, but their power-hungry actions were completely unjustified.

These nineteenth-century nations now had a more advanced society and culture than most other countries, and they now felt the need to put them to use. They became far too greedy and curious for their own good and were soon on a global conquest for ultimate territorial power. It’s sometimes difficult to see how truly dangerous an ethnocentric nation is when hunting for power, but it happened quite frequently during this time period and was often brutal. A great example of this would be the fight over the Philippines. From the late eighteen hundreds into the early nineteen hundreds, America and Spain fought for the rights of the Philippines, among other islands. In the end, the Spanish signed a treaty, giving the territories of Cuba, Guam, and the Philippines to the U.S. At first, the Filipinos (people of the Philippines) were hesitant to begin a new rule, but assumed that nothing could possibly be worse than how the Spanish had treated them. The Filipinos’ fear soon grew as they realized how wrong they were. America took away their independence, their land, forced labor on them, and declared war. Power got into the nations of Spain and America a little too severely, and it’s because of this that a country and its ways of life can be torn apart.

As explained here, power is the main cause of imperialism and why people did what they did. Advancements in technology brought on the behaviors of ethnocentrism and extreme tyranny to a whole new level, changing how culture and society was forever impacted and how power masked morality. But we can choose not to fall into the footsteps of our anscestors and be a better people; one where power doesn’t define a nation. Imperialism is something to learn from and to never repeat in history. Let us leave territory battles and tyranny behind as technology advances even more and be a better people instead.

Finally, an important U.S. representative has visited Myanmar (Burma) where she is presently meeting with members of that country’s military dictatorship, as well as with Aung San Suu Kyi,  the opposition leader and Nobelist, with the hope that the illegitimacy of that administration be terminated and a new dawn of freedom ushered in the light of a long-nursed democracy. One has to wonder as to why it took so long to get involved in Myanmar’s nightmare which seems to be gradually giving way toward perhaps a brighter future. There seems to be a faint light at the “end of the tunnel,” with the possibility that, after years of tyranny, the turn to a new chapter might be in the offing.

I happened to be born in Burma when it was a British Colony, but after World War II when the rest of the world had celebrated an exhilarating victory, as well as freedom from fascism, Burma had lapsed into a nightmarish military dictatorship which is still clinging to power. Ironically, it seemed as if the rest of the world cared less about the intolerable condition of that country’s much-maligned subjects, as if they belonged to a different planet.

Prior to the military takeover of Burma, there were leaders that dreamed of freedom from colonialism, hoping to establish its independence at the end of World War II, after the Japanese occupation of that country, but it wasn’t meant to be when it was suddenly overwhelmed by yet another calamity that continues to this day.

Perhaps, the visit of our Secretary of State will open a new chapter in Myanmar’s long struggle to establish its true independence on the groundwork of democracy.

It was not in some alternate universe, it was not in the tyrant regime of WWII Nazi Germany, no. It was in the allegedly free-est country on the planet. North Carolina’s sterilization legacy is tragic. Not to mention hypocritical.

America professes to promote human rights,life,liberty and so on, and yet NC sterilized thousands of people. I am appalled that any such atrocities occurred in the country I call home. My heart and prayers go out to the victims.  

This is a Plea adapted from a letter from the N.R.A.

You should know that the United Nations is holding ongoing meetings to finalize an Arms Trade Treaty by next summer- a treaty that could severely restricts you rights as an American citizen and will all but do away with the Second Amendment rights. This is no exaggeration.  It is time to “strike a blow for FREEDOM.” Keep in mind that America was not invaded during WWII because the Axis Forces knew that they would meet with an armed population. If we are not allowed to keep our Second Amendment rights intact, we will, in a short time, fall victim to the same kind of tyranny that swept Europe before WWII. Write to: Francisco Raul Canseco, U.S. House of Representatives;  Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Senate ;John Cornyn III, U.S. Senate and  Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan, and let them know that this cannot be allowed. 

There isn’t a video footage uploaded on the Youtube yet, but I did see a footage on CNN.com which you can see by clicking on the CNN link I’ve highlighted. The video was shot with a cell phone so it’s not known if the dictator was badly injured and captured or truly dead. What I can also show here is a photo (or a photoshop result) of the allegedly killed Gadhafi:

The Lybian Prime Minister already confirmed that the former dictator is dead, but I am a bit confused about the above picture and the numbers 8/13 on the top right corner. It is not clear if it is the date or some resolution indications, I am not that kind of expert. BUT THIS photo is being spread all over the news across the world.

Whatever the outcome is, the street celebrations clearly show that this event can be called The End of the Era of Tyranny in Lybia. From now on this nation must be fully supported in its strive to get back on its feet and rebuild its country from the scratch. Hopefully there will not be some nations trying to extract profit from this breaking news and the situation in Lybia, but in the past years this was exactly what happened to other countries in similar situation.

When you hear the words “junk food”, what image comes to mind? I bet it’s greasy hamburgers and chips, maybe fried chicken, pizza, gloopy pink milk shakes, bumper bags of salty crisps, king-size bars of chocolate. All those things identified as being full of fat and sugar in fact. Why do we not also think of Porc Calvados served with Dauphinoise potatoes and choux fleur (cauliflower) with bechamel sauce, which is easily as fatty as any similar sized portion of burger and fries, pizza or fish and chips. Why do we not consider that great delicacy so beloved of gourmets, pate de foie gras as junk food. Fois Gras is French for “fat liver”. Why do we not recoil in horror from fancy chocolate desserts served in expensive restaurants the way we are told we should shun Mars Bars for their sugar content and calorie count?

What is it that makes junk food so disgusting to so many people who think they have “more refined taste.”

Snobbery, that’s what. Junk food is not actually a proper scientific term designed to measure a foodstuff’s dodgy, synthesised or highly processed content, it is the descriptor used when someone wants to express their disdain for the eating habits of people they consider to be of a lower class, the underclass. Junk food is eaten by all those check shirt wearing, six pack chugging, trailer park dwelling Americans and their British binge drinking, chain smoking,  sink estate domiciled counterparts, who have made a career out of claiming social security benefits. 

As my birthday treat my family took me to a favourite Italian restaurant last night (and as an extra special treat I was allowed to pay – ell it’s the thought that counts.) We ate well, stuffed mushrooms, Gamberttini (garlic shrimps) and Minestrone  for starters, two Lasagne,  Chicken Cacciatore, Canelloni and Bass in a tomato sauce as main courses. No desserts and two of the starters were split between two people, the portions are not small. A side order of garlic pizza bread. We were all stuffed when we left. The fats and salt in those dishes is no less fattening or blood pressure raising than in a Big Mac and fries so where does the disapproval of people who enjoy what they can afford come from. 

The reason for writing this is once again, as the downfall of Colonel Gaddafi retreats from the front line of news coverage the stories below sensational headlines are telling us there will be an intergovernmental “war on junk food”, as an as a supranational group of interfering busybodies from the self appointed academic elite experts warn of a growing “obesity epidemic”, and once again those news reports are accompanied, not by photos of grinning middle-class folk like my family tucking into rich dishes in a swanky restaurant, but by photos of lardy working class men in ill fitting jeans, and women with muffin tops hanging over too tight  leggings, licking ice-cream cones, wolfing down huge pizzas or burgers or slurping industrial sized milk shakes. “Junk food” is code word for stuff eaten by lowlife scumbags. At a time when it is no longer PC to use either of the s-words to describe the lower orders – “scum” or “slackers” – the snobs of the new elite are forced to find other ways to demean those they consider beneath contempt, the undeserving poor, the masses, proles, the great unwashed, to express their fear and loathing of the strange semi housetrained sub species that inhabits municipal housing estates and  inner cities.

In a report titled War On Obesity which predicts half of Britons will be obese by 2030, Professor Klim McPherson, an epidemiologist at Oxford University, said the government needs to learn the lesson of tobacco taxation, which has dramatically reduced smoking rates.

“A tax wouldn’t be unpopular if people knew what the issues are,” the Professor told television news crews. “People know obesity is a real problem. People don’t know, as individuals, what to do about it. Governments do know what to do about it and if they could persuade people, as they easily could, it would be a popular action.”

The Professor is talking out of the hole in his or her bottom in saying governments know what do about it because governments haven’t a clue what to do about climate change, overpopulation, the debt crisis, food shortages, dwindling oil reserves, the problems of an ageing population and so on ad nauseam. It is ridiculous to suggest governments know what to do about anything. And they are never likely to if they listen to the advice of people like Prof. McPherson. To suggest taxation has reduced smoking is just so wrong in so many ways one wonders what kind of qualifications it takes to become a professor these days. A single figure IQ for a start I’d guess.

Taxation has not reduced smoking, taxation has forced smoking underground. Because smoking is so vilified and because taxes are so high it makes contraband smoking products attractive to small time criminals, when official surveys are conducted people just lie. One independent study estimated that for every cigarette sold legally in Britain another contraband ciggy is sold, most by shifty looking guys in pubs who keep their stock on a sports bag. And then there is the boom in hand rolling that took off around the time the self righteous, moralising do gooders, the anti pleasure campaign was gathering momentum under the populist authoritarianism of the Labour government.

The experts also propose restrictions on junk food advertising and initiatives to warn children not to spend too much time sitting around watching TV. They claim the initiatives are much more cost-effective than obesity operations and some fat drugs.

What is noticeable about these high ha

indeed, elitist attitudes is how close to fascism they are becoming. The scientists and social engineering lobbyists seem to be saying “If you do not agree with us you obviously are too stupid to be allowed to think for yourself or exercise free will. Attacking the advertising industry is a road to nowhere however and is probably just a sop to the few true liberals still active in mainstream media and politics. Advertising firms buy politicians cooperation with campaign contributions as do the chemical and food processing corporations.

Thus we see what is going on. After the failure of the carbon driven global warming scam which was only ever about imposing taxes on our fuel for domestic heating, cooking, running cars, we now see another attempt by governments to tax the most basic essentials of life, this time our food. In the UK food has always ben exempt from Value Added Tax (the European sales tax) but here we see creepy, Dr. Evil type scientists working with self serving unelected bureaucrats to impose food taxes by stealth under the guise of combating the obesity epidemic.

A spokesman for The Department of Health commenting on this latest report said obesity was one of the governments main priorities. “We are encouraging people to make simple changes, such as eating more fruit and vegetables, cutting down on fatty foods and being more active. We have no current plans to impose a ‘fat tax’, but we are working with food companies to reduce fat, sugar and salt and ensure healthier options are available.”

We have no current plans is bureaucrat speak for “We have put it on the agenda for next week.”

Every discussion or shock-horror story about “junk food” is always focused on working-class communities. From Morgan Spurlock’s film  Super Size Me, in which that brave, well-educated New Yorker from the posh Park Slope area of Brooklyn dared to descend into the poorer areas and living ‘like poor people do’ on nothing but McDonald’s meals, (the ugly elitism of this project was so blatant – does anyone apart from smug, self satisfied twats like Spurlock really think poor people live solely on Burgers and Fries?) to fat tongued, mockney posh boy Jamie Oliver’s various self promoting wars on unhealthy school dinners, never venture beyond poor communities. They never knock on the doors of five-star restaurants that serve up deliciously fatty grub or raid the homes of people who scoff fine steaks washed down with £100 bottles of wine. They will never attack those chefs who cannot make a sauce without putting in very generous amounts of butter double cream. Why would it? The whole point of the nonsense notion of “junk food” is to make a moralistic distinction between what We The Good, Right Thinking People eat (good, interesting, exotic food, cosmopolitan food) and what They The Scum eat: trashy, uninteresting, fast, microwaveable crap. My Boeuf Stroganoff, the cream, brandy and mustard sauce made with butter and double cream is food fit for the elite. When fat boy down at the cheap end of the road goes for a curry with his mates, though the sauce is made with butter and coconut milk, it is disgusting junk. Why? Because I talk posher than what he does and live in a bigger house, that’s why.

One story that captures well the unpleasant truth of the anti-junk food campaign was the time during Jamie Oliver’s first school dinners crusade  when two mums pushed portions of chips through the school railings at Rawmarsh School in Rotherham. They said they were sick of their children coming home from school hungry, having refused to eat the “rabbit food” served in the lunch hall under Jamie Oliver’s instructions. And so they decided to smuggle in chips for their kids to feast on instead. The women were depicted as the scum of the earth. They were “sinner ladies”, the press said, “like daytrippers feeding animals at the zoo”. All because they dared to ignore the Gospel According to St Jamie. Now Oliver was labouring under the misapprehension that because he was a celeb with his own TV show kids would eat couscous at his bidding.

Having brought up children of our own, my wife and I could have told him ant self respecting child would eat cold vomit in preference to couscous.

The expression of snobbery through the issue of food has a long history. As John Carey showed in his book  The Intellectuals and the Masses, in the early twentieth-century writers and thinkers who were allergic to working-class folk frequently attacked the tinned food consumed by less well-off people. “Tinned food offends against what the intellectual designates as nature: it is mechanical and soulless”, said Carey. They saw tinned food as “an offence against the sacredness of individuality”. And so it is today. For all the spouting of medical statistics and health facts in the jihad against junk food, really it is driven by an elitist view of certain types of food as “soulless”, unnatural, too easy and too cheap. It is not  a matter of taste to these people but a matter of class and class hatred, cunningly disguised as a health campaign. The very last thing they would want to see is the working class eating salads, vegetarian pastas, home cooked stews and casseroles (as many do it must be said,) that would undermine the carefully constructed sense of superiority these affluent professionals depend on for their self esteem.

It would of course be irresponsible to close without saying this article does not intend to encourage people to eat badly. A varied diet and moderately sized portions ought to be enough to keep our digestive system in good shape, stave off obesity and and keep the waistline under control. Moderation is the key. It’s OK to pig out sometimes but not every day, it’s OK to be self indulgent but don’t let it become a habit. A burger is delicious occasionally but do you really want to eat the same every day? And most of all, never let the prejudices of elitists dictate who you are.

RELATED POSTS:
Pasty Wars: The new pie tax
New Plan To Beat Obesity – Calorie Offsetting
Government launches a binge drinking crackdown
After death and taxes the third certainty is arse dribble with new anti obesity drug
Everything they said is bad for you is good
Food and health: are you getting your five a day
Food fascists seek to ban meat
Health Tyranny moves a step closer
Nanny Orwell will protect you
Alcohol Related Authoritarianism
Cerne Abbas Giant To Be Castrated?
More posts on politically correct fascism

In times of continued oppression, America’s citizens must ask themselves “what has been the foundation on our strength and humbleness”? In the case of America, our country was founded on the principle that our people are free, we do not entangle ourselves in foreign affairs that do not have a direct impact on our national security and we create and continue relationships with other countries in regards to importing and exporting goods and services. Our country has made it clear to the rest of the world, if someone wants liberty and the right to pursue happiness then America is the nation for you and yours. Much of the latest legislation to be supported and passed by our government has spite in the face of America’s core values. When our representatives do not read legislation or debate said legislation before voting, it is time as a people to petition our government to redress our grievances.

Through repeated ignorance and bribe, our representatives have authored and passed legislation that challenges the very foundation of each citizen’s unalienable rights. We can no longer feel secure in our persons, as legislation has passed to crush the checks and balances that our country has been proud of for hundreds of years. Our presidents, both past and present have engaged in foreign military action that did not, does not and should not involve the United States of America. Instead, our government has found a certain taste for playing god with foreign countries citizens. Our representatives are deaf to the voice of the people and to the Constitution of the United States. When government officials begin to look past the founding documents of a nation, the people of that country must and are responsible to hold that government accountable for its ignorance and tyranny if it ensues. In America’s case, the tyranny has ensued.

What are people to do? One thing is very simple, and it is to just speak up and not to be passive to what our government is doing. Make the government hear you by calling your representatives, writing letters and mailing them to government officials, go to the government physically and protest the tyranny and absolute disregard for the Constitution peacefully and above all else always exercise your natural rights as so eloquently written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. For if we do not exercise what rights we have, those rights will be lost either through none use or through your own passiveness to the government creating legislation to overtake those rights. Throughout the world the natural rights that American citizen’s posses are greater than most and to keep them you must use them and never allow the government to abuse them. 

To understand Dracula, we must first look back to where he originated, and how he became a prince of Wallachia. Wallachia’s first ruler after gaining it’s independence from Hungary was Prince Basarab the Great, generally thought to be one of the first known ancestors of Dracula. (The Historical Dracula, Linke, pg. 3) Over a period of 32 years, 1386-1418, Dracula’s grandfather Mircea the Old ruled. (Dracula, Prince of Many Faces, Florescu & McNally, pg. 34) During these times, the main power struggle was against the Ottoman Turks, and their constant threat of invasion. This is apparent throughout Vlad Dracula’s rule as well. Mircea recognizing such threats, thus began a fortification process, which included the “island fortress of Giurgiu”, as well as the “stronghold of Chilia.” (Florescu & Mcnally, pg. 34) One interesting point to note about the fortress of Giurgiu, which was made by Vlad’s father, who is reported to have said “even the women of his land armed with spindles would be able to conquer the Turkish Empire.” (Florescu & McNally pg. 34) One can then easily gather that the threat of the Turks was not taken lightly by any of Dracula’s ancestors. Mircea’s claim to fame came around the same time as Tamerlane was beginning to wreak havoc on the Turks. After the deathblow had been dealt to the Sultan at the battle of Angora, Mircea, ever the opportunist, placed Musa Celebi on the Turkish throne, who was in fact his son-in-law by marriage of his daughter Arina. This puppet ruler lasted for only 3 years however, and was killed by his own brother Mehmed I in 1413. Mircea did not do much else during his rule, except provide many offspring, of which only one was legitimate, however it was one of his illegitimate sons, which would later rule, and become the father of Dracula. (Florescu & McNally pg. 35-36)

Vlad Dracul, who was Dracula’s father, was born around the year of 1392. (Vlad the Impaler: Dracula’s real life persona, Geringer, Ch. 2) In response to Mircea’s alliance with Hungary, Dracul, as a child was sent as a hostage to Sigismund of Luxemburg. The sending of one’s children at this time as a bargaining chip was not unheard of, and widely practiced. After Mircea’s death Dracul stayed as a royal page of Sigismund, and was given an education fitting of such a title. It was here that he learned concepts regarding knighthood, which would serve him in later years. He would eventually attempt to leave the court of Sigismund, and seek help from the Polish king at the time, Ladislas II Jagiello. However, he was caught, and brought back, and as punishment, Sigismund acknowledged Dan II, as ruler of Wallachia, who also was Dracul’s cousin, which further developed a blood feud that would extend far into Dracula’s reign. (Florescu & McNally pg. 36-38) At some point in 1431, months prior to Dracula being born, his father was called to Nuremburg for a secret ceremony. It was here that he was inducted into the Order of the Dragon. Generally this can best be described as a secret religious knight order much like the Knights of the Hospital of St. John, or the Teutonic Knights. Their role was to protect Catholicism from Protestant heretics and the ongoing threat of the Turks. (Vlad Dracula Biography, Leblanc, pg. 1) From this comes important aspects of the creation and myth of Dracula. The knights of this order were required to wear two separate capes, one green, and one black, over a red garment. According to Florescu and McNally the black cape was “to be worn only on Fridays or during the commemoration of Christ’s Passion.” (Florescu & McNally pg. 40) Yet another requirement of the knights was to wear a special medallion, which they did until death, and depicted a dragon with wings outstretched and tail hanging on a double cross. (Florescu & McNally pg. 40) Finally, this is where Dracula, was able to get his very namesake. After being inducted into the Order, Vlad went by the name Dracul, which in Romanian translated to Dragon, and thus he would refer to himself as “The Dragon”. Also in Romanian adding an a to the end of a word denoted it to mean the son of, hence why Dracula literally translates to “Son of the Dragon” (Geringer, Ch 2, Ancestry) Later this name would cause controversy for Dracula as “the word drac can mean both “devil” and “dragon” in the Romanian language.” (Florescu & McNally pg. 41)

Vlad Dracula was born in 1431 in either November or December, in the fortress of Sighisoara, Romania. (Leblanc, pg. 1) He had an older brother named Mircea, and a younger brother named Radu. His father, much like his grandfather, sired a number of illegitimate children as well. His mother is believed to be Princess Cneajna, who was the daughter of Alexandru…Prince of Moldavia. Dracula’s childhood immediately set forth the skills, which would make him the man he was to become. Training for the children, was done much like that of the Spartans, and placed a huge amount of stress on being physically in good condition. They were left outside in the elements, played games, which focused on physical prowess, and began to hunt. (Florescu & McNally pg. 46) “Even a five-year-old tot had to be able to ride an unsaddled horse at a gallop to the local fountain or grazing field.” (Florescu & McNally pg. 46) In the winter of 1436, Dracula’s father finally was able to take the capital of Wallachia, at Tirgoviste. Thus in doing so, he became the Prince of Wallachia. These were important years for Dracula, because being in this regal setting furthered his education on politics as well as skills he would use in battle. Bear in mind, he was only between the ages of six to eleven at this time. (Florescu & McNally pg. 48) “He was taught swimming, fencing, jousting, archery, court etiquette, and the more refined aspects of horsemanship, in which he had been roughly initiated as a small boy and in which the young prince excelled.” (Florescu & McNally pg. 48) Not long after this bout of education, Dracula’a father was placed in a very sticky situation. To back track a bit, we must understand that Vlad Dracul faced the most immediate threat from the Turks, being that his land was right in the line of fire. Therefore, after Sigismund died, Vlad Dracul signed an alliance with the Sultan Murad in order to not be completely destroyed. Thus, when the Turks invaded Wallachia in 1442, Dracul, not wanting to upset either side, stayed neutral. This would make a bad decision because the Turks suffered a massive setback, and Sultan Murad was none to keen on this half-ass support on behalf of Dracul. There were certain reparations then asked of Dracul due to his insolence. First, he was to pay 10,000 ducats, then provide 500 young boys for the Turkish janissary corps. However, the one with the largest impact, would be the Sultan requiring Dracul to leave behind his two younger sons as prisoners, both Dracula and Radu. (Florescu & McNally, pg. 49, 53-54)

Dracula would remain here with the Ottoman Turks for the next 6 years of his life, so obviously this had a profound influence in shaping his attitudes toward the world. Any psychologist could tell you that the ages of 11-18 are perhaps the most influential in developing ones outlook in life. Florescu & McNally point this out when they say “For the next six years Vlad Dracula, an adolescent, lived among the Turks without father or mother. He did not speak the language of his jailers. Their religion was strange to him. He must have felt abandoned by his father and other kin.”. (Florescu & McNally pg. 54) Life however was generally only bad in this arrangement if the hostage acted in a bad manner, or if the person responsible for them, broke their end of the deal. In fact, Dracula along with his brother shared company with the Sultan’s second son Mehmed II. Therefore, they were given the same education as anyone from Turkish royalty. By the time of Dracula’s departure from his captors he had mastered the Turkish language, a skill he would later come to rely on. Dracula proved to be a difficult student, and was often whipped in order to keep him in line. His brother on the other hand, was naturally good looking and thus was often catered to much more than Dracula. This would start a growing conflict between the brothers, which would last far after Dracula became Prince of Wallachia. During this time, Dracula’s brother Radu was busy fending off sexual advances from Mehmed II, it would seem Mehmed knew it was best to not try the same ploys with Dracula. Sometime in the year 1447, Janos Hunyadi, also known as the White Knight, began a campaign to rid Wallachia of Vlad Dracul, and put a puppet candidate on the throne from the rival family line. Bad blood had been exchanged between the two, because both blamed each other for the defeat at Varna. Thus, Vladislav II became the Hunyadi supported candidate for the Wallachian throne, and Hunyadi instigated a revolt within Wallachia. The outcome was both Dracul, and Dracula’s older brother Mircea attempting to flee the city. Mircea was caught, tortured, and buried alive. Dracul managed to escape but was assassinated nonetheless. News reached Dracula of his father and brother’s death a couple of months later. Needless to say, Dracula was clearly upset, and Vladislav II had painted a huge target on himself, one in which Dracula would hit the bull’s eye quite definitively. (Florescu & McNally, pg. 55-63)

“In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.” (Art of War, Tzu, pg. 24) Dracula would hold this theory close to his heart in his accent to power. Upon being informed of the news of the deaths of both father and brother, Dracula was set free by the Turks, but stuck around to become an officer in the Turkish army. Being that he had been educated and lived within the Turkish Empire, the Sultan wished to establish Dracula as the ruler of Wallachia, because in this way he assumed he would have easy access to the land. Thus in 1448 Dracula attempted to retake Wallachia from Vladislav II, with support from the Turks. His invasion was not to be successful however, and he was driven back. (Military History, Romano, pg. 2) Not long after this, Dracula went to stay in Moldavia, whose ruler Bogdan II happened to be Dracula’s uncle. This lasted for a period of about two years, and Dracula continued his education, as well as fighting alongside his cousin and friend, who would later be known as Stephen the Great. After the death of his uncle, Dracula along with his cousin fled Moldavia, sought refuge in Transylvania, which was still the territory of Hunyadi himself. Hunyadi initially tried to remove Dracula from his land, even so far as to have him killed. Dracula managed to escape, as he would be able to do many times in the future. It would appear what happens next, can best be described as both men using each other in a symbiotic relationship. Eventually Vladislav II turned to support the Turks, to appease the boyars in Wallachia, as well as not approving of Hunyadi’s seizure of land he considered his own. (Florescu & McNally pg. 65-69) Hunyadi therefore, supported Dracula’s quest for the Wallachian throne, and in return made him a governor of Transylvania, to help protect against the threat of the Turks. This proved beneficial in 1456 when Mehmed II laid siege to Belgrade, was forced to split his army of 90,000 between the forces of Dracula and Hunyadi, and suffered a humiliating defeat against a much smaller army. Towards the end of this struggle, Dracula with a small group of supporters and mercenaries encroached on Wallachian territory, took the capital of Tirgoviste, and got the revenge he sought, by killing Vladislav II. Thus the dawn of a new time was at hand, a time where Dracula would be the Prince of Wallachia. (Romano, pg. 2) 

When Dracula assumed power, he immediately began a massive construction of fortresses and walls throughout his land. While some of these were just refortifications, others were completely new. Dracula also had a goal of separating the power of The Prince and the power of the boyar council, who had been gaining in such over the years. It was due to these politics that led to Dracula, being at least one of the figures represented in Machiavelli’s The Prince. “The worst that a prince may expect from a hostile people is to be abandoned by them; but from hostile nobles he has not only to fear abandonment, but also that they will rise against him; for they, being in these affairs more far-seeing and astute, always come forward in time to save themselves, and to obtain favors from him whom they expect to prevail.” (Machiavelli, pg. 135-136) Dracula understood this, and one of his first cruel acts was directly aimed at the boyars of his land. Dracula was aware that the boyars in power had been part of the conspiracy against his brother and father. Thus for an Easter celebration he invited them all to a dinner, and during said meal, he asked how many princes had ruled during their lifetime. Many answers were received but none were less than 7 princes. Thus he had all of the nobles and their families arrested. The older ones were immediately impaled, a form of punishment he had learned during his stay as a Turkish prisoner. The younger nobles and their families were taken to the site of an old castle in the mountains above the Arges River. Here they were forced to rebuild the stronghold, by forming a human conveyor belt of workers. This took months, and they were not permitted to stop, but instead worked until their clothes fell from their bodies, and then were made to work naked. (Linke, pg. 6-7) Here we can see the beginnings of Dracula’s sense of order and discipline developing. Dracula was not to be taken lightly in his own country, where he viewed himself as much a warrior as a Prince. Dracula’s strict rule cost the lives of an unheard of amount of people at the time. “Estimates range from a minimum of 40,000 victims to a maximum of 100,000…” (Florescu & McNally pg. 104) One can’t truly appreciate how impressive that number is, until you realize all of Romania had a population of only half a million at the time. (Florescu & McNally pg. 104) Of course Dracula had far more tales of horror, that extended throughout his rule. Dracula valued honesty above all else, and would not tolerate deception. Upon learning that his mistress had deceived him about being pregnant, he cut her from breasts to groin, and then is reported to have said “This is where I have been” and left her to die. Adultery by a female was generally punished by her sexual organs being cut out, and she was skinned alive, where she would later be hung, with her skin hanging beside her. He also disliked the poor, sick and homeless, describing them as a plight on society. There is an account of him inviting all of these people to his dining hall for a feast, as they finished he bolted the doors and windows, and lit fire to the building, thus forcing them to die in agony. Yet another account tells of a group of 300 gypsies who came into his land, of which case he picked three, and had them cooked, and forced the remaining gypsies to eat their fellow companions. This was not the only case of forced cannibalism during his reign. Perhaps the most well known story is that of Timpa Hill, in which he ordered his army to round up the entire town of Brasov. Men, women, and children were hacked to pieces, as well as impaled, meanwhile Dracula had a table set up, where he consumed a meal. This is where part of the vampire myth originates due to some sources claiming he had his bread dipped in the blood of his victims. The total number of people killed is generally thought to be 30,000. Generally the smell would have been atrocious due to that when someone is impaled they hemorrhage, and release their bowels, so in essence you would have the stench of clotting blood and feces, of 30,000 corpses. The story goes that one of the knights held his nose for the stench, and Dracula was so outraged he had him immediately impaled and supposedly said “but because he had been loyal until today, hoist him higher than the rest that he does not have to smell his company”. (The Evil 100, Wolcott, pg. 31-34) Impaling was by far his favorite form of punishment, and he later used it to save his land.

Dracula’s alliance with the Turks was finally dashed when Mehmed II received letters, which proved that Dracula had sworn allegiance to the King of Hungary. In an attempt to capture Dracula, a meeting was supposed to be set up where Hazma Pasha, a Turkish commander, and Catavolinos were to see the plan through. Dracula yet again caught word and was instead able to capture both of them. From here Dracula attacked Giurgiu, by disguising himself as a Turkish officer, and giving orders in Turkish was able to get the gates opened where he and his men proceeded to partake in a slaughter. From here Dracula began an assault on Turkish occupied areas from the Danube to the Black Sea. As proof of his loyalty to King Matthias of Hungary, he sent two bags of heads, noses, and ears that belonged to the vanquished foes. This proved to be the last straw for Mehmed II who decided to perform an all out assault on Wallachia with a force of around
100,000 troops. Upon the arrival of the Turkish troops, Dracula and his army of around 30,000 began to retreat into the territory well known by the Wallachians. This tactic would be copied many times in the future, perhaps most recently in World War II by the Russians. As Dracula retreated deeper into his own territory he ordered the destruction of all towns, the poisoning of water, and burning of all crops. He left a wasteland for Mehmed and his army to try to cross. The ploy worked as Mehmed’s men were dying from exhaustion, thirst, hunger, and disease. In the final assault on the capital of Tirgoviste, Mehmed and his already disheartened army was greeted by one of the most horrific and awesome displays of power. Outside the city gates, in a mile long semicircle, was a forest of Turkish prisoners impaled, around 20,000 in total. Most were already well in the stages of decomposition, most notably the corpses of Hamza and Catavolinos, who had been rotting for months, and were raised higher than the others. This site was so sickening Mehmed immediately retreated the following day. (Florescu & McNally pg. 141-144, 147-148) “Such blunt manipulation of primal emotions is a forceful way to achieve compliance.” (Gratch & Marsella, pg. 73) The rest of Dracula’s life was marked by betrayal, soon after this, he was betrayed by his cousin Stephen the Great. This led to his fleeing Wallachia, and eventual capture and imprisonment by King Matthias for 13 years. After this time he was released in an attempt by Matthias to resume crusading, and establish Dracula back on the throne. Alas, it was short lived; just one year after being released Dracula was killed by a member of the rival family line, and his Turkish supporters, in December of 1476. However as the story goes Dracula died fighting, much like a great Viking beserker, but in the end, the odds were stacked against him. (Florescu & McNally pg. 153-174) 

In conclusion, Dracula was a man far beyond his time. He comprised ideals of great generals and tyrants before him, and would influence those, which were to come later. His use of manipulation and fear, on and off the battlefield, was unparalleled, and to this day remains untouched. Was he insane? Obviously, from some of the tortures he inflicted one could draw this conclusion. Perhaps though one should realize his life from his younger years, and realize that Dracula, wanted nothing more than to be the master of his own fate. Anybody, who got in the way of this, deprived him of his life, which had already happened as a boy. His strict moral codes, while absurd to many, worked for him, and to an amazingly well degree. There was virtually no crime in Wallachia during Dracula’s main rule. Dracula far understood the idea that it is better to be feared than loved set forth by Machiavelli. He not only understood it, he lived it, and in doing so provided an outstanding example of how one could rule effectively through the use of fear. Love is fleeting, but fear will lasts eons of time. The whole concept of most religions is the fear of reprisal not the love of doing what is right. The same holds true for governing people in any manner, whether through a Theocracy or a Monarchy. While the fact still remains that Dracula took matters most likely too far, he had the right idea. Without boundaries and rules, people naturally will stray, and will seek power for themselves to use for their own devices, thus putting the rest in possible danger. It’s coincibolical that the man responsible for impaling scores of people would also be the leading champion of Christianity in his day. Perhaps the best way to sum up Dracula is in the immortal words of Sun Tzu who said “Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemies resistance without fighting.”. (Tzu, pg. 26)

Why do I have to wear a seatbelt?  Why is there a law that requires me to wear a seatbelt?  Why am I punished if I do not wear one?  I understand the safety factor.  If there was not a law, I would still wear a seatbelt because I want to survive a crash.  I know that the odds of me surviving increases with seatbelts.  However, why does the government force me to do it?  If I do not wear one, I am only hurting myself.  Yet, as Americans we do not cry foul when the government forces me to do this.

Why is marijuana illegal?  There is not much difference between marijuana and alcohol.  Set aside the whole driving under the influence argument, and focus on an individual sitting at home smoking a joint or an individual enjoying a nice bottle of 18 year old scotch.  What is the difference?  We use the health argument on keeping marijuana illegal.  Yet, drinking and abusing alcohol brings health problems.  Why is the government making this decision for me?

Why can’t I distill my own liquor?  I can brew my own beer.  I can ferment my own wine.  Yet, I am not allowed to have a still in my backyard and create my own whiskey.  Once again, there are the health issues with a homemade still.  Yet these same arguments exist for home brew, and even home cooking.  I do not mind the government regulating the sale as there is valid health issues just like with any food or drink.  Why is the government protecting me from my homemade whiskey?

These are just a few things that I should have a choice and that the government should not dictate to me.  Every time I turn around, the government is passing new laws to protect me from myself.  New York wants to stop restaurants from putting salt into foods.  The Federal Government is banning incandescent light bulbs.  Because of Federal regulations, a cheap top loading washing machine no longer cleans clothes.  You must buy a higher prices front loader to get your clothes clean.  San Francisco banned Happy Meals with toys.  Chicago banned homemade lunches for school children.  In Chicago, you cannot make your child a lunch for him to take to school.  The government wants to make every decision for me. 

I understand the arguments why some people think these government regulations are good.  There are health issues.  There are environmental issues.  We have a real problem with obesity in children.  There is some validity to these arguments.  The basis of all these arguments is that the good of the many outweighs the good of the individual.  Group rights or societal protection is more important that individual rights. 

The problem with this argument is that it is based on previous lost rights.  The government has taken away our rights.  When they want to take away more, they point to the previous laws/regulations as the justification to continue limiting our freedoms.  We are forced to contribute into Social Security, Medicare, and other social programs.  You need to wear a seatbelt because you may get in an accident and collect Social Security, or society may have to take care of you.  You cannot distill your own liquor because you may become an alcoholic and society will have to take care of you.  You cannot smoke marijuana because you might become addicted to harder drugs, which will lead to crime or society taking care of you.

I realize that many people think that the government is justified in make laws/regulations that control out lives.  Some may think that the government is right to stop me from doing the things I wrote about.  Think about the arguments that you would use to justify that the government is protecting me from myself.  From those arguments what more can the government control in my life?

If the good of society is more important than individual rights, what else will the government control?  Will the government force medical care on me?  I can make that argument under the government’s current reasoning.  Will the government control the number of children I have?  I can make that argument too.  Will the government tell me what temperature I can set my AC?  I can make an environmental argument for that.  If the government can dictate the type of light bulbs I buy, can they dictate the type of televesion that I buy?  California did.  These examples are unlimited.  If the government can control one individual decision, it can control all decisions.

The real questions is, “What is the logical conclusion for the argument that the government can control any individual decisions in my life?”  Tyranny.  Enslavement.  The genie is out of the bottle.  Every day the government will find new ways to control our lives.  We need to wake up and realize that we have lost our freedom.  We need to wake up and take back our freedoms.

Barany’s study of Marx’s concept reveals that the term “ dictatorship of the proletariat” did not have a fixed concept and is referred to as a ‘volatile’ concept throughout Marx’s series of works. Marx most certainly considered the “dictatorship of the proletariat” as integral in the development of capitalism into socialism and a natural result of its evolution. Marx however, was certainly not implying any sort of dictatorial rule for the workers movement. Zoltan Barany’s study of the Marxist concept endeavored to define Marx’s implication when using the phrase. Barany suggests that traditionally Marx equated dictatorship to tyranny and vehemently opposed the concepts incorporation into the socialist movement.[1] Marx did not pertain to the abolition of democracy on the way to socialism, rather the opposite.

The most concise description given by Marx about the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is in a letter written in 1852 by Marx to Josef Wedemeyer:

“What I did new was to prove: 1) That the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production, 2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3) That this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of classes and to a classless society.”

Karl Marx presumes that class struggle in a capitalist society “most necessarily” leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The terminology Marx uses infers that class struggle in a democracy naturally will lead to this distorted concept of dictatorship. Marx’s concept has tone of inevitability and questions the role of the proletariat in a functioning democracy. Karl Kautsy’s work ascribed the Dictatorship of the Proletariat published in 1918, attempts to determine the role of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat in Marxism. Marx proclaimed that the Proletariat in a functioning capitalist democracy is always the majority. The Proletariat majority, if organized and integrated, would play the foremost role in a democracy, and therefore in government.[2] Essentially creating a dictatorship of the majority, in which the majority is always the proletariat.

Cover of Civil War in France

It has been argued that Marx and Engels viewed the Paris commune as a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Engels expressly declared in his introduction to the third edition of Marx’s book that the Paris Commune demonstrated “The Dictatorship of the Proletariat”. Kautsky outlines the argument that Marx’s study of the civil war in France provides evidence for this association. The Paris Commune is described by Marx as “a government of the working class, a result of the struggle of the producing class against appropriating class, the political form under which the freedom of labor could be attained being at length revealed.”[3]

This statement illuminates Marx’s view that the commune constituted, as Engels suggests, a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Furthermore, democracy was an essential part of the evolution of such a political situation. The Paris commune was a body that constituted a political force of the working class. It is plausible that Marx viewed this organized working class political movements as the beginning of the eventual rise of the proletariat. Marx defines the Paris Commune as a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ in light of the view that this is describing a transitional phase. The commune is a part of the intermediary stage from capitalist bourgeoisie dominance, towards a classless form of socialism.

Image via Wikipedia

Marx envisions the Paris commune as a step towards the emancipation of labor. Mehmet Tabak’s analysis of Marx’s opinion on the Paris commune reveals the notion that Marx identified the commune as part of the shift from non-emancipated labor to emancipated forms of labor. Therefore making the connection that the commune marked the beginning of the transition of capitalism towards communism. Tabak further presses the notion that the commune demonstrated a shift in political power towards the proletariat. All these aspects combined to form the backbone of Marx’s support and unique perspective on the commune.[4]

According to Marx the dictatorship of the proletariat can only take place in a real democracy, because it is only in a real democracy that the working class has the ability to form a united front capable of electing government. The Paris commune arguably served to highlight these beliefs. Marx saw the “dictatorship of the proletariat” as the phase precluding a socialist society. The awakening of the proletariat class as a political movement would form a consistent majority in capitalist democracies. The ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ suggests that democracy and labor emancipation would ultimately lead to drastic changes in the ordering of social power in a functioning democracy. However this is not the end of the process, only the beginning of Marx’s dream of a classless, stateless, emancipated society.

If you enjoyed this article, take a look at these:

• The Greek Who Served the Sultan- work in progress.
• Cyprus : A Guide – blog in progress.
• Orwell’s 1984 and the Fragility of Democracy
• Constantinople, The Fall

Bibliography

1. Mehmet Tabak ,”Marx’s Theory of Proletarian Dictatorship Revisited”,

Science & Society, Vol. 64, No. 3 (Fall, 2000): 300-333

2. Zoltan Barany, “The ‘Volatile’ Marxian Concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat” Studies in East European Thought, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Mar., 1997):1-21

3. Kautsky, Karl. “The Dictatorship of the Proletariat (1918).” Marxist Internet Archive. accessed March 1, 2011. http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1918/dictprole/index.htm.

[1] Zoltan Barany, “The ‘Volatile’ Marxian Concept of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat” Studies in East European Thought, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Mar., 1997): 17

[2] Kautsky, Karl. “The Dictatorship of the Proletariat (1918).” Marxist Internet Archive. Accessed March 1, 2011. http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1918/dictprole/index.htm.

[3] Ibid,

[4] Tabak, Mehmet. “Marx’s Theory of Proletarian Dictatorship Revisited” Science & Society, Vol. 64, No. 3 (Fall, 2000): 312