Archives for category: Foreign Relations

This Blog “The Philosopher on Politics has been combined with “A New Paradigm in Christian Thinking”.  All new Posts will appear on http://gadflyblog.com/ effective 12/12/2016.

Thanks for your interest in these topics.

The Philosopher

The Gad Fly ver. 1.2.1

The Philosopher

https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/gad-fly/

http://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/tag/gad-fly/

7/20/2016

Copyright 2016

Definition of Gad Fly

  • A fly that bites livestock, especially a horsefly, warble fly, or bot-fly.
  • An annoying person, especially one who provokes others into action by criticism.

The Gad Fly of the Greek Democracy[i]

  • Plato refers to Socrates as the “gad fly” of the state (as the gad fly stings the horse into action, so Socrates stung various Athenians).

The Gad Fly of the Christian Church[ii]

A New Paradigm in Christian Thinkingis the gad fly of the Christian Church.  Christian Churches do not accept criticism, ever. The price of criticism in the Christian Church is excommunication.  Christian sees themselves as “birds of a feather” and a critical bird is not of their nest.  They must protect the income and salaries of the professional Christians, the minds of their youth and the minds of all of their members from the gad flies of the Christian Church. Professional Christians must preach to the choir, instructing them on the religion that they have chosen to put their faith.  The cost of not preaching to the choir is that the choir will vote with their feet and donations, resulting in a loss of income to the church and the professional Christians who probably have children – if Protestant – that they need to get through college and a mortgage to pay off.   If the professional Christians are Catholic, they will not meet with the approval of the hierarchy of the church and will be excommunicated.

Max Planck, the German nuclear physicist of the early twentieth century, stated, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.[iii]

The same statement can be made of religion.  Acceptance of a new viewpoint of the existing data on religion can only take place when a younger generation becomes comfortable with these new views and those who are adamantly opposed to these new views die off.

Because of this self-protection of the minds of the youths, the church is destined to disappear for failure to keep up with our knowledge of the universe and the light it has shined on our knowledge and purpose of the visit to planet Earth of the Representative of the Creator of the Universe (RoCoU) two thousand years ago, and taught how the Homo sapiens who have evolved over the past thousands of centuries can get their basic needs of food, clothing and shelter met on this planet Earth and how to live in peace with each other and other nations.

An interesting side note is that Paleoanthropologist has found no link to the evolution of the Homo sapiens skull to that of the evolved Ancient Man, leaving open the creation of the Homo species by the “Creator of the Universe”.  Although ancient man and modern man have identical bone structure from the neck on down, their skulls and thus brains are much different, nor is there any evidence of a transitional development from the skull of Ancient Man to the skull (Brain) of the Homo Species. [iv]

The advances in our knowledge of the universe and the life creation process in the last one hundred years, mainly due to the Hubble Telescope and advances in life science, have put the Christian Church in a position where they need to update their theology from religious to pragmatic (cause and effect, science) or face extinction.  The church is clearly in a positon of “grow or die” and the church cannot possibly grow with the determination to maintain their existing course, a course established and handed down through the generations and centuries by people that did not understand the meaning, instructions from the RoCoU and implications of the events that had taken place in the very beginning of “The Way” or the Christian Church.  These events took place in a very religious society and that society, for the most part, saw and recorded these events through a religious lens (perspective).

Case Study I

The RoCoU that visited planet Earth two thousand years ago taught the audience that had gathered around Him how to get along with other people on a one-on-one basis and how nations could live in peace with one another on a nation-to-nation basis.[v]

  • For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” [vi] From the accepted Christian perspective, their judgments will be judged by a higher power at the end of the life of planet Earth. They do not see their judging others as something that has immediate consequences.  From the pragmatic perspective, the effect of judging others – be it one-on-one or nation-to-nation – will have immediate consequences.  All Homo sapiens on planet Earth are of equal authority; one does not have dominion over another. And as one Homo sapien judges another, so in turn are they judged by those they are judging in real time by the same measure they are using to judge!This holds true for one nation to judge another nation. As one nation judges another, so is that nation judged, by the measure they use to judge, by the nation they are judging.  As in the case where the USA is judging ISIS with “air strikes,” the USA is being judged by ISIS attacking soft target (civilian targets, airplanes, restaurants, public places, etc.) with bombing and assault weapons.  The USA has judged ISIS as “barbaric” and ISIS, in turn, has judged the USA as “barbaric”.  This ISIS War has made it impossible to tell the Barbarians from the Barbarians.

Wars of our past have been mislabeled.  We must remember that the President of the USA is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA.  The orders given by the President must be followed by the USA military forces.  The President does not issue illegal orders.  If the President  orders it, it is a legal order and must be obeyed by those in subornation to the Commander-in-Chief.  One can argue that they do not have to follow an illegal order, but they will probably be sent to the brig while the Supreme Court reviews their case. They will be removed from and replaced from duty and someone else will carry out the Commander-in-Chief’s order.

Therefore the Civil War as we know it was not our civil war – it was  Lincoln’s War.  The USA involvement in WWII was FDR’s and Truman’s War.  Harry Truman was President when the Korean War began in 1950, and Dwight Eisenhower was elected in 1952 and was President when the armistice was signed in 1953.  The Vietnam War was JFK’s initiative and LBJ’s Bombing War; Nixon pulled USA troops out of Vietnam. The Serbia vs. Bosnia, Kosovo, NATO was Clinton’s war.  The Persian Gulf War I with Iraq was G.H.W. Bush’s War.  The Iraq War was G.W. Bush’s War and the ISIS-ISIL War is Obama’s War.

As a professional troubleshooter for over forty years, I can equivalently state that, “A problem must be accurately described before action is taken to try and solve the problem; if not, a bigger problem will be the result.”  By placing the proper labels on our past wars, we should gain some insight as to the right problem to solve.

The Right Problem to Solve

  • Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison.” [vii]

The term “workable compromise” was not coined until the twentieth century. Is it any wonder that our ancestors did not understand the meaning of the above instruction from the RoCoU during his visit to planet Earth two thousand years ago?  A workable Compromise is a solution to conflicts that work for all participants in the disagreement.  The first step in search of a workable compromise is to ask the conflicting subject, “What do you want?”  If one does not understand what the conflicting parties want, how can a resolution ever be found that works for the principle parties?

  • Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace.[viii]

Here we have the workable compromise on a much larger scale.  In the case of USA vs. ISIS, the question was never asked, “What do you want?”  If we trace back the steps of the previous administrations, we should be able to predict what ISIS-ISIL wants.  The Sunni Muslims were in power in Iraq prior to G.W. Bush’s administration.  G.W. Bush’s War left the Sunni dispossessed from their homeland by the puppet Shiite Muslim administration installed by Bush. Iraq’s neighbor, Syria, was involved in its own civil war; The Sunni Muslims, now still armed with their weapons from the now defunct Iraq Red Army, seized the opportunity and developed their base of operation in Syria.  This new ISIL then made pronouncement on video, in a very barbaric way, for the USA to “Stay out of our fight.”  The Obama administration judged ISIL as “terrorists” and initiated air strikes against ISIS-ISIL as they threatened our allies in power in Iraq.

As described above in Case Study I, judging a nation as terrorist will result in the judging nation to be judged as terrorist by the judged nation.   As the USA conducted air strikes against “hard targets” (military targets) in an attempt to minimize collateral damage (civilian deaths), ISIS-ISIL, in retaliation, began bombing and assaulting soft targets (Civilian Targets).

Judging and the lack of ability to negotiate a workable compromise by the Obama administration has, and will continue to, cost the western civilization much cost in damage, dislocation of refugees and lives of civilians.  It is apparent that even a routine change in the administration by a newly elected administration will not end this conflict with ISIS-ISIL. A resignation or impeachment of the Chief Executive seems the proper road to pursue.  A newly elected administration would be in a position of trying to apologize for the actions of the previous administrations, and that never happens.

The Lens Used for the Viewing of the Facts

The lens one views the facts, events or evidence through determines the conclusions that the viewer will hold as the correct interpretation of the facts, events or evidence. The classic scenario is this: Two men who are walking in the woods come upon an immaculate garden, complete with trimmed hedges, flower garden arrangements, etc.   One man states, “There must be a caretaker for this place.” The other man states, “What a wonderful work of nature.”   The events that took place during the visit of the RoCoU two thousand years ago can be looked at through a religious lens or a pragmatic lens.

There are two and maybe three writers that were able to record the events, of the visit to Earth by the RoCoU and the events that took place, without looking though there religious lens.  Mark, who wrote the book of Mark in the Book of Books, the Bible, was a young man on the perimeter of the core group who became the Apostles of the RoCoU. He found himself in Rome where much persecution was taking place of the “Christians” in Rome.  He took it upon himself to record for the purpose of history the events that had taken place during his life.  He was an eyewitness to some of the events and received reports from those who were part of the core group of the RoCoU.  The style of writing for an historian is to answer the questions, “who, what, where and when.”   Luke, who wrote the books of Luke (Luke I) and Acts of the Apostles (Luke II), was contracted to record the events that had and were taking place in this time period. [ix]  Luke wrote under the guidelines of a journalist, answering “who, what, where and when.”  Luke was an eyewitness to many of the events that took place, he interviewed others who were eyewitnesses of events and he was an embedded journalist with the Apostle Paul on his missionary journeys.  Matthew was a tax collector and a Jew who made an argument to Jews of the authentication of the RoCoU to the Jewish religion.  He sometimes included the “why” in his writings, as did John in the book of John.  This would make their writing styles, “who, what, where, when and why” a little more difficult to sort out the facts from their interpretation of the facts and events that took place during this visit of the RoCoU.  The Apostle Paul was highly educated in Jewish religion and history.  He viewed our relationship with the RoCoU through the lens of Jewish religion and history.  A close examination of the writing of Paul will disclose that his view of the RoCoU’s visit to planet Earth was religious and the RoCoU’s view of his visit to earth was pragmatic and the next step in the evolution of the Homo species on planet Earth.

 The Gad Fly of the Democracy of the USA

The present day gad fly of democracy in the USA is The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired.[x]  The Greeks invented democracy from scratch and it worked well for them for about 170 years.  The Greeks were on the peak of their Golden Age when they got tired of hearing their gad fly, Socrates, who was a critic of their society, in particular of the shortcomings and corruption in this democracy.  Socrates was one of the founders of western philosophy.  The Greek Senate charged Socrates with “corrupting the minds of the youth,” and they sentenced Socrates to death.  The death of Socrates was the beginning of the downfall of Greece, for they had lost their “guidepost.”

The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, like Socrates has been excommunicated from his position at a national laboratory by management that took offense to his proposals that threated their power structure.  His teaching credentials were canceled in a local church for “corrupting the minds of the youth” and not teaching the church’s official view on the subject. He was excommunicated from a church where he was a member in good standing for twenty years for publishing “A New Paradigm in Christian Thinking” [xi] and corrupting the minds of their youth and any other person in their church with science and philosophy.  Thank God for civil laws that protects our citizens from physical harm.

Our President has not chosen to listen to this gad fly, when he suggested that a workable compromise be initiated to resolve the conflict of space, control and authority in Iraq between the three different sects of Muslims. This was proposed by the Vice President, and now the reining authority in Syria has been added to the mix; he chose to put together a coalition of nations to wipe ISIS-ISIL from planet Earth.  ISIS-ISIL has retaliated with attacks against this coalition of nations and the USA hitting soft targets.  We should expect this activity to continue. The best outcome, using the best military forces on the planet,  for a military victory, will be guerilla warfare with the soft targets continuing to be hit by these guerilla fighters.  The only solution to the ISIS-ISIL conflict is a workable compromise – a permanent home for the displaced Sunni Muslims from their Iraq home.

Lessons from History

In 480 B.C. the Persians were set upon wiping the Greeks off the Earth or enslaving them.  The Persians greatly outnumbered the Greeks.  The Persians were under autocratic the rule of Xerxes; the Greeks were under democratic rule (one for all and all for one).   The Persians overran the Greek Spartans (trained warriors) at the pass of Thermopylae [xii] and sacked Athens, which had been evacuated by the Greeks.

The Persians had large war ships (similar to that of the USA navy, bigger than their opponents).  The Greeks built small maneuverable war ships with a torpedo like Ram on the bow of the ship (A trireme).  The Greeks lured the Persian navy in to the Aegean Sea where there were many islands presenting a maneuverable issue for the Persians.  With their mobility (like ISIS-ISIL), the Greeks ran circles around the larger Persian ships and rammed the Persian ships with their torpedo like Rams at the front of their ships and sank the Persian Fleet. [xiii]

Beware USA your large arsenal of weapons is being out maneuvered by an adversary who is focused on mobility.

The USA Transition from a Republic to a Democracy

The USA was formed as a republic and has been in a long transition to a democracy in small steps. This change has come about by allowing more of the population to vote in elections and it changed the way our President was elected.  In the beginning, only land owners could vote in the elections.  These were the people who had an invested interest in the profitability of the nation, much like that of stockholders voting in a corporation. [xiv]  The vote has slowly been extended, for various reasons, to other segments of our society who do not have an investment or knowledge of producing a profitable nation (women, teens, those on government assistance).  We certainly have improved on the lifestyles of our citizens, as have the Greeks, but our national debt is rising above our ability to pay the interest, which could eventually result in foreclosure on our property (nation) by our creditors (like the two bailouts of the Greeks by the EU in recent history).

The Life Span of a Democracy

The average lifespan for a democracy is about 170 years, as established by the Greeks.  In the Greek democracy, leaders were chosen by a lottery, thus minimizing payoffs and corruption in the government.  Serving as a leader was considered a duty of citizenship.  Ballots could be cast to remove a government leader from office and they would be exiled for ten years from their society. In the Greek democracy, only about 20 percent of the population could vote. [xv]   The Greeks now have more people on the government payroll than people paying taxes to support the government. Is this direction the USA wants to continue to pursue?

The Code of Conduct to Live Long in this Land

There is a “code of conduct” that was intended to provide for the continued success of a nation living long in the land that had been giving to them.  Unfortunately, these were given to a very religious people and they did not understand the economic implications of these Ten Codes of Conduct.  Unfortunately, these Ten Codes of Conduct are still seen as religious by almost our entire society, religious and secular alike.  When one sets aside their religious lens, the pragmatic lens shows that the economics of these Ten Codes of Conduct can be realized.  The original Codes of Conduct were given in an ancient language; therefore, the proper perspective is to look at them through the eyes of a parent giving instruction to their children so that they might live long in the land the parent was giving them to raise their generations.

  1. You will not listen to anyone but your father for guidance.
  2. You will not form addictions that will prevent you from making your own decisions.
  3. You will not use my name as an authority to cause trouble or discomfort for any other person on this planet Earth.
  4. You will take a day off, after every six days of work, and remember who gave you this land and enjoy your time with family and friends, and you will allow your employees time off to enjoy their family and friends, and you will not mow your lawn on this day and interrupt the peace of your neighbors.
  5. Remember what your mother and father taught you, and hand down those teaching to your children and grandchildren, that you might live long in this land I have given you.
  6. You shall not murder.
  7. You shall not steal.
  8. You shall not give false witness against your neighbor.
  9. You shall not seek an intimate relationship with your neighbor’s wife.
  10. You shall not scheme to gain possession of your neighbor’s property.
  11. You will not build a big mansion type house in your neighbor’s back yard.
  12. You shall keep the walk-ways, of your communities, free of “F oxtails” that injure our pets. [xvi]

QED

 

 

[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

[ii] http://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/

[iii] Max Plank, http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/max_planck.html/

[iv] NOVA: Dawn of Humanity DVD, http://www.shoppbs.org/home/index.jsp/

[v] Jesus on judging, negotiating

[vi] Matthew 7:2, The Bible

[vii] Matthew 5:25, The Bible

[viii] Luke 14:31-32, The Bible

[ix] Luke 1:1-4, The Bible

[x] http://thephilosopheronpolitics.worpress.com/

[xi] http://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/

[xii] http://www.ancient.eu/thermopylae/

[xiii] National Geographic The Greeks DVD, 2016, http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/weaponswar/p/blpwtherm.htm/

[xiv] https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/voting/  TBC

[xv] PBS, “The Greeks”, 2016

[xvi] http://pets.webmd.com/dogs/foxtail-grass-and-your-dog/

Christianity is not an Offensive Weapon Ver. 1.1.2

The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired

https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/weapon/

The Philosopher

http://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/tag/weapon/

4/19/2016

Copyright 2016

Introduction

As of late, there are several incidents in this first quarter of the twenty-first century that involve using Christianity as an offensive weapon.  The Representative of the Creator of the Universe (RoCoU) visited planet Earth twenty centuries ago and used parables to teach us that peace on this planet Earth can be obtained by “negotiating a workable compromise.”   This is a negotiating process that results in an agreement between individuals, organizations and nations and that works for all parties concerned.[i]

Case Study 1

The USA sought to oust the dictator of Iraq and did so effectively.  The overthrow of the dictator was justified from the fear that weapons of mass destruction were being constructed.  The driver for this operation was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the USA Armed Forces.  This was someone more knowledgeable of the military might of the USA than of negotiating a workable compromise.  However, the government installed a replacement for this dictatorship and, in turn, ousted the Islamic sect that was previously in power under this dictatorship. This resulted in their being disenfranchised from their home country.

The disenfranchised military members left their homeland with their weapons they possessed as being a part of the dictatorship’s army.  These disenfranchised military members formed their own group now known as ISIS-ISIL.  This new group rightly blamed the USA for their disenfranchisement and made their demands clear in a barbaric fashion. They did not want the USA involved in their objective to establish a home nation for this group in Iraq and Syria.

While under public pressure, the leadership of the USA retaliated against ISIS-ISIL with military air forces.  The USA leadership had an opportunity to negotiate a workable compromise at this time but instead chose to retaliate with force, and they did so under the label of Christianity.  ISIS-ISIL then retaliated against soft targets in Europe and, using propaganda on the internet, was able to influence USA citizens to retaliate against soft targets in the USA.  As they see the USA as a Christian nation, all citizens of the USA qualify as a soft target.

This progression of the USA targeting hard targets and ISIS-ISIL targeting soft targets has now escalated past the point of the present leadership of the USA to be able to negotiate a workable compromise with ISIS-ISIL.  A change in leadership with another leader not capable or experienced in negotiating workable compromises would effectively just be a change in the face of the leadership and would not result in a policy change from military action to negotiating a workable compromise. The RoCoU taught us during His visit twenty centuries ago to live in peace with our neighboring nations.  This leaves the only solution to peace as impeachment or resignation of the President of the USA, which would send a clear message to ISIS-ISSL that the USA is ready to negotiate a workable compromise.

Case Study 2

The leadership of a small local independent church was following the examples given in the New Testament of the Bible to guide and organize their church.  When their New Testament theology was threatened by the discovery of a scientific explanation of the events that were reported in the four Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles of this New Testament, the leadership chose to take offensive action to protect their religious tradition.

What could be the possible reasoning behind this aggressive offense by church and state?

  • The USA leadership was pressured by public opinion to take military action against ISIS-ISIL because of their barbaric method of sending a message to the USA to stay out of their fight.
  • The leadership of the USA mistakenly thought that an aggressive military action was consistent with Christian values.
  • The Commander-in-Chief’s responsibility is given to the President, when instead it should be delegated to a much wiser panel of mature statesmen (not the Joints Chiefs of Staff, as they have a conflict of interest, which was demonstrated by the invasion of Iraq).
  • Christian leadership in the church has become a professional Christian role. Professional Christians have a conflict of interest in their churches (Protestant), as they must maintain continued funding by a fickle membership to ensure the continuity of their salary.  The use of laypersons to perform leadership duties in the church mitigates this conflict of interest and would lead the way for debate on the Gospel in the church.  In another major non-Protestant denomination, this conflict of interest is mitigated by a corporate style of leadership.  In this case, it is a follow-the-leader style of church with a hierarchy of church leaders.  For this reason, the idea of open debate is unheard of in this denomination of the Christian church, as final authority rests with their chosen leader.
  • Debate in the church has been discouraged dating back to the Apostle Paul. Paul knew he was right even if he was not[ii] and the other orators were declared unreliable by Paul. [iii] Any interpretation of the Gospel other than that defined by the Apostle Paul was and is an imposter.
  • The RoCoU, on the other hand, stressed the use of negotiating a workable compromise to resolve differences of opinion in the church, in society microscopically and between nations macroscopically. [iv] Certainly he would have supported open debate in the church over the closed church doctrine that now exists in most present day churches.
  • A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it,” – Max Planck. [v] So it must also be true of a “New Paradigm in Christian Thinking.”

QED

 

 

[i]  Luke 12:58, http://biblehub.com/niv/luke/12-58.htm,  Luke 14:31-32,  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+14:31-32&version=NIV

[ii] http://drleman.com, “The Firstborn Advantage”, Revell Pub. 2008, p69 “The Firstborn Personality”

[iii] 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+11%3A13-15&version=NIV

[iv] Ibid i

[v] http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/max_planck.html

Impeachment or Resignation in the Best Interest of the Nation

 Ver. 1.0.2

The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired

https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/impeachment/

3/31/2016

Copyright 2016

 

International Relations

On the subject of international relations, here is a quote from the Teacher of Teachers, the Representative of the Creator of the Universe, who visited this planet Earth two thousand years ago, on the importance of “negotiating a workable compromise”:  “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king.  Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand?  If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace.” Luke 14:31-32 NIV.

The History Resulting in ISIS-ISIL

The President of the USA had an opportunity to “negotiating a workable compromise” with the newly formed ISIS-ISIL, when the Sunni Muslims expressed a ligament complaint about being disenfranchised from Iraq by the puppet government and Prime Minister of Iraq, put into power by the USA when it overthrew the existing Sunni government.  The President instead stated, “I am going to put a coalition of nations together and defeat ISIS-ISIL.”

The President of the USA has initiated air strikes against ISIS-ISIL troops and “hard targets” in Iraq and Syria, and has conducted drone strikes to eliminate leaders of ISIS-ISIL. ISIS-ISIL was given the label “terrorist” to justify eliminating them from this planet Earth.  As ISIS-ISIL has responded with attacks against “soft targets,” the rhetoric has progressed from defeating ISIS-ISIL to genocide of this militant group of – yes – people.

The Unseen Forces

Sometimes it is not what you see that is important, but what you don’t see that can prove to be the demise of the attacking nation.  How many Sunni Islamic people are there are on this planet Earth?  Has it not been considered that this militant fraction of Islam is being supported by other unseen Sunni Muslims?  After all their complaints, that the USA was the cause of their being disenfranchised from their own country was a valid complaint.  Yes, maybe they expressed their anger at the USA and their desire for the USA to stay out of this conflict in a barbaric inappropriate way, but is the USA using appropriate measures to mitigate this situation by the use of the most powerful military force on planet Earth to eliminate ISIS-ISIL from this planet Earth?

The Christian Issue

As the President of the USA has acted against this militant group under the label of “Christian,” the President is representing the morals and mission of this country as Christian values.  Therefore, everyone in the world who wears the label of Christian is a target for this militant Islamic group as a “soft target”.  Because we live in the USA and the USA is considered a Christian nation, every person in the USA is wearing a target on their backs as a “soft target”.

ISIS-ISIL has demonstrated their ability to hit “soft targets” and have left numerous individuals dead and wounded in the streets of Paris, Brussels, and California, and have brought down a civilian Russian airplane killing hundreds of individuals.  They are advancing in their technology and stealth operations, they are using effective  propaganda on the Internet, recruiting fighters with their global JIHAD mission and are advancing in all areas over this planet Earth.

A New Direction for the USA

We all make mistakes, and sometimes those mistakes cause even larger mistakes until the process ends in the demise of those making the mistakes.  Sometimes people have been groomed from birth to think they can have everything they want, and when they get into a power position like the President of the USA, this grooming of getting what they want continues.

Learning to “negotiate a workable compromise” begins in the family of origin.  One needs to grow up negotiating with their siblings and sharing with their siblings.  Those who miss out on this early training do not develop the skill to “negotiating a workable compromise”.    Unless an intervention takes place in adulthood and intensive training in the skill of “negotiating a workable compromise” is accomplished, they will go to their grave lacking this simple skill that could have saved countless lives.

Remove and Replace the President of the USA

It will do little good to replace our President with another President who also did not develop this skill of “negotiating a workable compromise”. (Note the key word “workable” for negotiating compromises that result in “I win, you lose” does not work for all concerned, and is therefore not workable.)  The field of candidates for the President of the USA and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces does not look promising for experienced “negotiators of a workable compromise”.

The Nest Step to Obtain Peace on Planet Earth

There is a way forward that does appear to hold promise. The scenario is that the House of Representatives and the Senate confront the President of the USA with the option of being impeached or resigning.  A voluntary resignation of the President in the best interest of the nation would result in the Vice President assuming the duties of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, making a strong statement that the USA is changing directions in regard to ISIS-ISIL. This Vice President appears to have significant experience in “negotiating workable compromises” in the Senate and in his family of origin.  “Biden was instead a leading advocate for dividing Iraq into a loose federation of three ethnic states.[i] This is certainly a first step in “negotiating a workable compromise”.

The new President would have a few months to “negotiating a workable compromise” with the leaders of Iraq and Syria to find a homeland for ISIS-ISIL, with concessions from ISIS-ISIL to cease and desist from attacking “soft targets” everywhere on planet Earth.  If the new President can accomplish this task before the election of another candidate to the office of President of the USA in November of 2016, he may well be the best choice for this office.  This scenario has nothing to lose and everything to gain.  If a resolution is not found by November, we will elect a new President; if he accomplishes this mission, the existing Vice President could very well be elected by the people to the office of President of the USA and we would have a President with experience in “negotiating a workable compromise”.  If he does not accomplish this mission by the end of the year, he will at least have set us on a path to world peace.

QED

 

[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden

                            The Path to World Peace Ver. 1.1.4

The Philosopher

http://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/tag/World-Peace/

https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/World-Peace/

Revised 3/21/2016

Copyright 2016

Introduction

There are many factors that cause conflict in the world, but one of the largest divides between people on a microscopic social scale and between nations on a macroscopic social scale is religion.  Religion can be divided into two parts: faith and tradition. The difference between faith and tradition is that faith does not need to be defended, protected, preserved or expanded, while Tradition must be defended, protected, preserved and expanded.  The promotion of tradition can be by peaceable means or by aggressive armed conflict.  Faith is something that can be shared with others but only by the personal testimony and by example of/by the faithful.

The Visit by the Representative of the Creator of the Universe (RoCoU)

Planet Earth received a visit by the Representative of the Creator of the Universe (RoCoU, a.k.a. Jesus) in the Common Era (C.E.) (in common terms) or the Era after the Birth of our Lord Jesus (in religious terms). The RoCoU came to planet Earth in the most advantageous time and place.  He came when the Homo sapiens had developed to an agrarian society, making the transition from “hunters and gatherers” due to a warming climate moving from an Ice Age.[i]  The Romans had conquered much of the known world and had built roads that made communications from community to community possible.  The RoCoU arrived into a culture that was a monotheist society, making known the Creator of the Universe more possible versus a society that was multi-theist, as was most of the known world at this time.

The purpose of the visit by the RoCoU is best described in the book of Luke in the Book of Books, the Bible.  Luke was writing as a journalist reporting to excellent Theophilus, a person or a group of persons. [ii] He not only interviewed eyewitnesses of the events that took place during this visit of the RoCoU, but was an eyewitness himself in his travels with Paul on his missionary journeys as reported in the Book of Acts, a.k.a. Luke II.  More insights can be obtained in the Book of Mark, as Mark was writing as a historian and in haste, so he was direct and did not offer any interpretation of the events. He just recorded the events for history.  From the accounts of Luke, we see that the RoCoU was on planet Earth to teach the Homo sapiens how to live life successfully on this planet and that Homo sapiens’ existence on this planet Earth will be finite, as planet Earth’s existence will be finite.

The Resurrection Problem

The Resurrection of the RoCoU, a.k.a. Jesus, has been interpreted through history as a religious event. He died for our sins, was resurrected from the dead as a forecast of our own resurrection, and He ascended into Heaven as a forecast of our own ascension into Heaven. [iii]  It is important to note that Paul the Apostle was a Jew’s Jew, an Israelite’s Israelite and an expert in Jewish Law.  He was chosen to represent the RoCoU (Jesus) to the Jews and the Gentiles (non-Jews) because he was persecuting the followers of the RoCoU by Jesus Himself in a very dramatic way, and he had the leadership personality and skills to accomplish the mission of establishing the “Living Church” of the RoCoU and to accomplish the mission of the RoCoU on planet Earth. [iv]  Paul, therefore, was humbled by the RoCoU and he put the focus of the Gospel message on the RoCoU himself and tied this event to the Jewish religious teachings of the time.

The RoCoU, however, put the focus of his message as being totally independent from – not tied to or a progression of – the Jewish religion.  “He told them this parable: ‘No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined.  No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better.’’” This is clearly a teaching of a “Paradigm Shift” which is a term that was not coined until the seventeenth century by the Philosopher Immanuel Kant and Thomas Kuhn in 1962. This term was first applied to the paradigm shift of the mathematics of the Greeks and to Newtonian Physics, and was later applied to social science by H.L Handa and to the paradigm shift of Christianity by Hans Kuhn. [v]

In general, a Paradigm Shift is a new way of thinking or a new way of understanding or acting.  The New Paradigm is totally independent from – not tied to or a progression of – the existing Paradigm. Therefore, the message brought to planet Earth by the RoCoU was indeed a Paradigm Shift from the Jewish Religion, which was the religion of the Homos sapiens where the RoCoU made His appearance on planet Earth.

The Return of the RoCoU to His Home Base

The RoCoU came to planet Earth in the form of the existing Homo sapiens on planet Earth by the immaculate conception of Mary, His surrogate mother.  He was raised in the Jewish society to which he was born and had complete knowledge of this Jewish religion and tradition.  To return back to His home base somewhere in the universe, He needed a change in form that would allow him to make that transition.  If He were to be interned on this planet as a corpse, he would not be able to return to His home base and go onto His next assignment, another planet, like the planet Earth in the “Goldilocks Zone,” to advance the life that has evolved on that planet as it did on planet Earth.  Therefore, the death, resurrection and the ascension of the RoCoU was necessary for him to continue His work in the universe created by the Creator of the universe – His Father.

The Science behind the Visit of the RoCoU

Astrologers have determined that there are approximately four billion other planets like Earth in the universe.  These plants are in the “Goldilocks Zone,” which means they are not too hot, not too cold, and are not too large and not too small. And given the possibility that water exists on these planets, which along with amino acid [vi] are the two requirements to produce life on these planets, all the other elements to create life are readily available in the universe (a.k.a. “star dust”). The conclusions that can be drawn from this data are that the RoCoU may have a lot of planets like planet Earth to visit.  That makes planet Earth a very small number amongst all of its peers.  Therefore, planet Earth is not just a singular miracle as it has been reported in the past.  Astro physicists estimate that the sun has about four billion years of fuel left to burn, and then it will extinguish and life and the planet Earth will cease to exist in this solar system.  The RoCoU stated the end time would come like a “Bolt of Lightning.” [vii]

Negotiating a Workable Compromise is Key to World Peace

The RoCoU stated that negotiating a “workable compromise” was one of the most import things to do to be reconciled with an adversary.[viii] Only children, or children who are widely separated in age or distance from their siblings (functional only children), have the disadvantage of having grown up in their family of origin without near-in-age siblings and not gaining the natural ability to negotiate a workable compromise.  These special children, who are becoming more numerous in our and other nation’s societies, have also shown themselves to be world leaders.  There have been five Presidents of the USA, including our present President in this first quarter of the twenty-first century, as well as the leader of Russia, who have not developed the natural skill of negotiating a workable compromise. Who knows how many other world leaders did not have an opportunity to develop the natural skill of negotiating a ‘Workable Compromise’? Their communication style incudes statements like, “I want this” and “I want that,” and they usually got what they wanted in their family of origin and this communication style carried over into adulthood.[ix]  Being the oldest sibling with a near-in-age same sex sibling also tends to show an aggressive communication style and does not demonstrate they learned how to negotiate a workable compromise in their family of origin.  Learning to negotiate a workable compromise, once majority has been obtained, often comes only with intervention and intensive training.

The Effect of Divorce on World Peace

Looking at world peace on a microscopic scale leads to exploring the changing families of origin.  Sociologists have presented three perspectives on the cause of the increasing divorce rate in the USA and Western Europe, as only Japan has been able to minimize divorce and hold families together under the same roof.  The three perspectives are:  Symbolism, Functionalism and Conflict Theory. Taking Religion into account, a fourth perspective would be the effects of religion on the rate of divorce.  All of these four perspectives must be taking as parts of the whole, since each perspective only gives a partial view of the changing societies of the world.

Symbolism Interaction

Symbolism interaction is a microsociological examination on small-scale patterns of social interaction.  Its focus is face-to-face interactions and how people use symbols to create social life.  Industrialization and urbanization change marital roles and lead to a redefinition of love, marriage, children and divorce. The increasing divorce rate is explained in terms of changing symbols (or meanings) associated with both marriage and divorce.  Changes in people’s ideas—about divorce, marital satisfaction, love, the nature of children and parenting and the roles of husband and wife—have put extreme pressure on today’s married couples.  No single change is the cause, but taken together, these changes provide a strong ‘push’ toward divorce. ” [x]

Functional Analysis

 “The central idea of functional analysis is that society is a whole unit made up of interrelated parts that work together.  Society is viewed as a kind of living organism.  Just as a biological organism has organs that function together, so does society like an organism. If society is to function smoothly, its various parts must work together in harmony.  The group is a functioning whole, with each part related to the whole.  Whenever we examine a smaller part, we need to look for its functions and dysfunctions to see how it is related to the larger unity.

The family has lost many of its traditional functions, while others are presently under assault.  Especially significant is that economic production is no longer a cooperative, home-based effort, with husbands and wives depending on one another for their interlocking contributions to a mutual endeavor.  Husbands and wives today earn individual paychecks, and increasingly function as separate components of an impersonal, multinational, and even global system.  When outside agencies take over family function, this makes the family more fragile and an increase in divorce inevitable.  The fewer functions that family members have in common, the fewer their ‘ties that bind,’ and these ties are what help see husbands and wives through the inevitable problems they experience.” [xi] 

An early and similar living organism view of society was applied to the Christian Church by the Apostle Paul. “Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.” [xii]


 

Conflict Theory 

Applying conflict theory to explain why the U.S. divorce rate is high, conflict theorist look at men’s and women’s relationship in terms of basic inequalities—men dominate and exploit, while women are dominated and exploited.  They also point out that marriage reflects the basic male-female relationship of society and is one of the means by which men maintain their domination and exploitation of women.

Conflict theorists see marriage as reflecting society’s basic inequalities between males and females.  Higher divorce rates result from changed male-female power relationships, especially as wives attempt to resolve basic inequalities and husbands resist those efforts.  From the conflict perspective, then, the increase in divorce is not a sign that marriage has weakened but, rather, a sign that women are making headway in their historical struggle with men.” [xiii]

Religion and the Rise in Divorce Rate

Following the lines of conflict theory with women gaining power in the U. S., religion is playing an important function with the diversity of religions in the U.S.  In western nations, the percentage rate of births to unmarried mothers (UMM) is increasing (from greatest to least of UMM rates is: Sweden, Denmark, France, United States, Great Britain, Canada and Germany).  Only the monotheist nations Italy and Japan have low UMM rates. [xiv]  Women have been gaining power; states have accommodated this change in the power structure of marriage with community property laws, no-fault divorce, and amicable attorney guided divorce.

A Lesson from History

“King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites.  They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, ‘You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.’ Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.” [xv] Historically this number of wives may have become inflated due to the verbal nature of passing down historical information in this time period, as there was not a great many people living in this area in this time period.

Effects of Men Marrying Wives of a Different Religion

There are several instances in which men find themselves married to a woman whose religious beliefs become objectionable.  This usually happens when the husband or mate attains the age of thirty-five to thirty-nine.[xvi]  At this age a maturation process begins [xvii] and the religious teaching of their youth (often from their mother) kicks in and they make a major life changing decision to follow the religion of their youth, which is now in conflict with the religion of their mate.  But as seen in Solomon’s case, these women do not change their religion, at least not easily.  Women are governed under different rules of life than men. They do not seem to go through this mid-life transformation; they have their own bodily changes at about the age of fifty.

In this changing of religions situation, mothers often take the position that they must protect their children form the heretical teaching of the new religion of their mate.  In community property states and no-fault divorce states, this can lead to some dicey situations and long discussions in courts, about the future of the children, and may result in court orders in regard to child custody.  Our courts do not seem to have the wisdom given to Solomon [xviii] when it comes to establishing what is best for the family, but they usually follow the letter of the law which does not put much substance in negotiating a workable compromise.

The Path to World Peace

What then is the “Path to World Peace?”  The Path to World Peace has two roads to follow.  Route one is to come to terms with the visit of the RoCoU to planet Earth twenty plus centuries ago and come to grips with the notion that He did not come to Planet Earth to set Himself up as a person or deity to be worshiped, but rather He came to instruct us how to live successfully on this planet Earth. [xix] This, in effect, was part of the evolutionary process of the Homo sapiens species.

The RoCoU taught that the teachings he was bringing to us was not tied to, in conjunction with, or a progression of anything that had preceded His visit.  “One does not put new wine into an old wineskin. The new wine is too volatile and will burst the old wineskin and he will lose both the new wine and the old wineskin.  New wine must be put into new wineskins.[xx]

Regarding The Path to World Peace, the RoCoU taught two parables that He hoped would be understood by his disciples and handed down through the generations.  Unfortunately His disciples were not at the development stage that they could understand these parables. They themselves were caught up in a religious society and could not separate their thinking in religious terms from that of scientific terms.  Parable 1, (One-on-One Peace): “As you are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled on the way, or your adversary may drag you off to the judge, and the judge turn you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison.” [xxi] Parable 2, (Nation-to-Nation Peace): “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.” [xxii]

The Path to World Peace: Negotiate a Workable Compromise with your personal adversaries and with other nations that have a different view of the world than your own nation.  Accept the overwhelming evidence that planet Earth is but one of a billion or so other planets like Earth and the RoCoU paid us a visit in a special place that was most advantageous for Him to get His message to the world’s inhabitants.  The RoCoU’s message was to teach us how to live on this planet Earth peacefully with other people and other nations, and these teachings were based on science not religion.  “People who are unable to understand perfectly both the Bible and the science far outnumber those who do understand them.” – Galileo (1564-1642).

There is one caveat to negotiating a workable compromise.  Most of us grew up in our family of origin with another sibling(s) somewhat close to our own age (within five years).  We learned naturally how to negotiate a workable compromise and how to share with another sibling.  Only children and those with distant siblings (greater than five years) did not receive this natural training to share and negotiate a workable compromise.  As a result, they got most of everything they wanted without outcries from their siblings, resulting in a communication style of “I want this” and “I want that,” and they usually got what they wanted.  They never outgrew this early training.

Food For Thought

Our greatest economic competitor, China, has a one-hundred percent national population of people age about thirty-five and younger, in this first quarter of the twenty-first century, that are only children and are coming into power positions in their country. This could prove challenging for leaders of the world’s nations to deal with since they would have little training in how to negotiate a workable compromise and would be accustomed to getting everything they want.  If the USA continues to elect only children as their President and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, this could be devastating to the USA, as neither nation would have leaders with the natural training to share and negotiate a ‘Workable Compromise’.

QED

 

[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_society

[ii] Luke 1:1-4, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_1

[iii]I Corinthians 15,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus

[iv] Acts 9, https://www.bible.com/bible/111/act.9.niv#!

[v] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

[vi] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid

[vii] Luke 17:22-24, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+17:22-24&version=NIV/

[viii] Luke 12:58-59, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12%3A58-59&version=NIV/,

Luke 14:31-32, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+14%3A31-33&version=NIV/

[ix] https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/adlerian-psy/

[x] James M. Henslin, Sociology “a Down-to-Earth Approach 5th ed. Allyn and Bacon, 2001 pp24-26

[xi] Ibid pp27-30

[xii] The Apostle Paul, Romans 12:4-5, The Book of Books, (The Bible), NIV

[xiii] Ibid vi pp 30-31

[xiv] Ibid vi p26-28

[xv] I Kings 11:1-3, The Book of Books (The Bible)

[xvi] C. G. Jung and personal observations

[xvii] The President of the USA must be Thirty-Five years old, USA Constitution

[xviii] 1 Kings 3: 16-28, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon

[xix] Book of Luke, The Book of Books (The Bible)

[xx] Luke 5:36-39, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+5:36-39&version=NIV

[xxi] Luke 12:58, http://biblehub.com/luke/12-58.htm

[xxii] Luke 14: 31-33, http://biblehub.com/niv/luke/14.htm

Boycott the Upcoming Presidential Election?  Ver. 1.0.3

The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired

https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/boycott/

(Rev.) 2/2/2016

Copyright 2016

We have a Presidential election coming up in November of 2016.  In that election, we will be asked to vote for a Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA, which is the most powerful military force on the planet.  Congress is forcing us to vote for this new Commander in Chief because it has not acted to reassign the duties of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA to a standing committee of ”White Haired Gentlemen” acting on consensus.   I state “White Haired Gentlemen” because white hair has been recognized for centuries as a sign of wisdom.  In fact, politicians, lawyers and judges of old used to wear white wigs to look like they had wisdom. Men of Wisdom are “Men who can foresee the consequences of their actions” and are what we need as our Commanders in Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA.

If Congress will not act, (and my Congressman refuses to introduce a bill creating a standing committee of “White Haired Gentlemen” (over sixty) to serve as Commanders in Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA) I will vote for whatever gentleman is on the ballot and has white hair!  If there is not a gentleman on the ballot for President (Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the USA), I will write in the name of my dog Buddy for President, and I would encourage all citizens who are sick and tired and FED -UP with the USA military being commanded by an amateur politician to do the same.  You can use your own dog’s name or my dog’s name; just let Congress know we are not fooling around and demand action to separate the President’s duties and the duties of the Commander in Chief!

 

Firstborns, Only Children and the Later Born Ver. 1.2.1

(Why Do First and Only Children, Always Get Voted the Most Likely to Succeed in Medicine, Science and Politics?)

The Top Gun National Crises Troubleshooter, Retired

https://thephilosopheronpolitics.wordpress.com/tag/adlerain-phy

1/7/2016

Copyright 2016

 

Introduction

The firstborn and the only child have some common personality and skill packages that give them a good chance of being successful in medicine, science and politics.  The personality characteristics of the only child can somewhat be considered like those of a super firstborn.  A short inventory of doctors, scientists and politicians reveals a significant population of firstborn and only children.  Only children come in two varieties: natural only child and functional only child.  The basic premises are that the only child grew up in their family of origin without the benefit of younger siblings to interact with.  Firstborns also come in different varieties: firstborn, firstborn male, and firstborn female, along with those who had at least five years separating them from their siblings.  Several of the past presidents of the USA were functional only children as shown in the chart.

Notable Leaders with Similar Families of Origin

Person of Interest Sibling Status[i] Leadership Roles
Abraham Lincoln Lost younger sibling at early age.  A functional only child. President of USA during Civil War.
Theodore Roosevelt Lost younger brother at early age.  A functional only child. President of USA, leader of The Rough Riders at San Juwan Hill.
Franklin D. Roosevelt Raised by his mother and grandmother. A functionally only child. President of USA for four terms.  Strengthened the US infrastructure.
Thomas Edison[ii] An only child. Early American inventor extraordinaire.
J. Edgar Hoover[iii] Older siblings greater than ten years.  A functional only child. Head of the FBI for 50 years.

 

 

Bill Clinton Raised up alone as a functional only child. President of the USA.
Barack Obama Raised up alone as a functional only child. President of the USA.

 

Dr. James Dobson[iv] An only child. Head of Focus on the Family.
Teaching Pastor [v] An only child. Leader and teacher of a local church.

Adlerian Psychology is the study of birth order and its relationship to personality characteristics.  The foremost author in the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century is Dr. Kevin Leman.[vi]  Below is his chart of firstborn personalities – the benefits and handicaps.

Traits of a Firstborn[vii]

Trait Positive Aspects Negative Aspects
Perfectionist Does everything well. Overly critical and dissatisfied with his own performance.
Driven Ambitious, headed for success. Always under great pressure.
Organized Able to stay on top of everything. No room in life for flexibility.
Scholarly Able to think problems through and solve them. Sometimes thinks too much; is overly serious.
List Maker Get things done; knows where he’s going. Boxes himself in; becomes a slave to his list.
Logical Avoids pitfalls of compulsive behavior. Knows he’s right even when he isn’t.
Leader Plays an important part in his family, community, etc. Expected to do too much; always leaned on by others.
Compliant Known as a good guy. Known as an easy mark.
Aggressive Gets ahead in life; others look up to him. Tends to be selfish and to disregard the feelings of others.

 

Traits of Only Children [viii] (Super Firstborns)

Trait Positive Aspects Negative Aspects
Uncompromising Gets what they want. Others do not get what they want.
Communication Style “I want” this and “I want” that. Others do not get what they want.
Controlling Must be in control of all situations. Others are left out of participating in the solutions.
Must be the leader Natural take charge leaders. Cannot follow some else’s lead.

 

 

In charge of their life Knows where they are going. Does not always know how to get where they want to go or accept nontraditional methods.
Trusts in Tradition Steady guiding force of the proven whether successful or not; trusts the existing paradigm. Not receptive to out-of-the-box thinking; will reject a new paradigm.
Non-Negotiator They get what they want. No experience in negotiating a “Workable Compromise” with another sibling.
Successful against all odds As their mother or grandmother said, “They can be anything they want to be.” Good examples of “The Peter Principle” (promoted above their capabilities).
“Most important person on the planet” High Self-Esteem. They hear this from birth until the death of their parents. They never grow out of this and continue to think they are the most important person on the planet.
Prefers being around mature adults Associates with the more wise, from experience, adults Misses out with having fun with their peers.

 

Discussion

The largest difference between the Firstborn in the family and the Only-Child is their interaction and competition for their parent attention with their siblings.  The Firstborn with siblings is often put in charge of the younger siblings and develops leadership skills and a sensitivity to the feelings of their siblings.  They are often responsible for organizing the games they will play together and setting the rules of the games.  The Firstborns will develop a parental role towards their younger siblings looking after them and protecting them.  This will usually manifest itself in a “Tell Assertive” communicative style where they usually assert themselves by telling other what to do.   It’s little wonder that this family pecking order is reestablished in the workplace.  The Only-Child misses out on these interactions with siblings; this could be a natural or a functional Only-Child (one who lost their siblings early in life or was isolated from them in different ways) and comes into the workforce with a individualistic communication style (It’s all about me).

To meet the demands of their younger siblings, the Firstborn must learn the art of “negotiating workable compromises”, the Only-Child is not afforded this opportunity.  The Only-Child has no competition for their parent attention and is often made to think they are the most important person on the planet (which from their parents point of view they are the most important person on the planet).  The Firstborn has this position of being the most important person on the planet for a short period of time until the second child is born.  They get read to sleep at night and spend time alone with their parents for this short time, than the competition arrives and their exclusive access to their parents change and the amount of time the parents can focus on each child changes.  This can be shown experimentally by examining the forensic evidence in the family photo album.  There one can find many photos of the Firstborn alone, but the rest of the siblings are photographed with “The Gang” with the exception of the Lastborn who gets some individual attention from their parents when their siblings have left the nest.

The Middleborn

The middle kids usually develop good negotiating skills, they have had to establish “Their Space” between an older sibling and a younger sibling and keeping the peace between the older and younger sibling especially if all are the same sex.  This negotiating skill will manifest itself in an “Ask Assertive” communication style where they learn how to maintain control and the peace by asking questions to assert themselves over their siblings and coworkers.  They often find themselves in middle management positions keeping the peace between those running the organization, the firstborns, and the lastborn workers.   The middle-born child often tries to get through live without being noticed, they are just part of “The Gang” [ix]

The Lastborn

The Lastborn grows up with almost everything laid out for them by their older siblings and parents and they come into the workforce looking to be directed by others in the workforce.  They often want their own ‘Freedom’ but once on their own find it difficult to manage their affairs to keep them solvent.  They tend to be more sociable than their older siblings and an easy mark for being taken advantage of in adulthood. [x]   Probably from their social nature, the Sales Force seems to be disproportionately populated with the Lastborns in their family of origin, and comedians and philosophers are also well represented by the Lastborns (Anything to get out of doing real work).

Personal Experience in Adlerian Psychology

At a national science laboratory platform speakers club, I once had the podium in an impromptu speaking session.  The meeting was held in a large conference room holding over a dozen people.  I asked the members of this speakers club if they were the firstborns in their families of origin.  All the people in the room, except for me, raised their hand indicating they were the firstborns in their families.  I performed a similar experiment in a study group at a local church again with about a dozen members.  I asked how many men in this class had an older brother.  Ninety percent of the men raised their hands.  I then asked how many women in this class were the oldest in their family of origin, and found that eighty percent of the men with older brothers came to class with their firstborn wives!  At another church where I had previously been a member and knew several men in this church, I asked if they had an older brother. Their answers were “yes.” Even the young preacher had an older brother.  Does this mean that ninety percent of men who are involved with the mission of a church have an older brother?  I asked the young preacher if his older brother went into the field of science, he replied in the affirmative.  Does this writer have an older brother?  Yes.  He is ten years older; that would qualify this writer as a functional only child.  Is this writer involved with the mission of the church?  This is the same writer of the blog: http://anewparadigminchristianthinking.wordpress.com/.

The Case of DNA

Does DNA play a role in our personality traits and skill packages?  In a recent program on PBS, the latest developments of DNA science were disclosed and revealed that our DNA changes with our experience, so as we learn new skills (and knowledge), our DNA changes to reflect these additions to our skill packages.  Therefore, when the parents, who are young and inexperienced, have their first children, the DNA passed down to these first children will be different than the DNA passed down to later children because the DNA of the parents have changed with their adult experiences.  All of the children in a family will then receive different skill packages from the same parents.

Conclusion

Why Do First and Only Children, Always Get Voted the Most Likely to Succeed in Medicine, Science and Politics?  Because of their innate knowledge from their parent’s DNA, the Environmental knowledge from their family of origin, getting praise for their academic achievements, being placed in leadership roles in their family of origin, firstborn’s develop skills of leadership, academic achievers, organizers and they pay close attention to the details.  Ditto the only-child but more intense, more controlling, very high level of self-esteem (They can be anything they want to be” (mom/grandmother).

This may explain the data showing that our sales force is composed mostly of lastborns, middle management is populated with Middleborns, and the younger of two brothers are involved with a church mission with their firstborn wife.

QED

 

[i] http://deadpresidents.tumblr.com/post/15457991558/which-presidents-were-the-oldest-child-the

[ii] PBS 2015

[iii] ibid

[iv] Personal information

[v] ibid

[vi] http://drleman.com

[vii] Dr. Kevin Leman, “The First Born Advantage” Revell pub., 2008, P 69

[viii] Personal observations while working with the USA’s Best of the Best at a national science Laboratory and a local church

[ix] http://drleman.com

[x] Luke 15:11-24