The Modern Jacksonian - Chapter 2 - The Responsibility of Structure

From its foundations this Nation is one of builders and doers, with a fair oddment of thinkers and philosophers thrown in. The majority of those coming to this Nation either did so to escape repression, social or religious, were exiled by law, thus being common crooks being given a choice between imprisonment or exile, or came willingly to start a new life with new horizons and form a culture amenable to those seeking such. While a class of land owners, merchants and generally wealthy individuals did form, they were not sinecured via past positions to those of power. While the Crown did establish colonies and law in these new territories, the people of those colonies saw themselves as distinctly apart from the mother country. This new land was decidedly different from the old country, and did not have things in form or shape of society that easily fit into the guidelines and definitions set by the Crown itself. Further the actual Government was seen as quite some far removed from the daily affairs of these farflung citizens and not abiding by the compacts of representation for such basic things as taxation.

The cultural compact between the Peoples of a Nation has history and structure to it, both of which are commonly known so that they can be held in common. While religion was somewhat better tolerated than in centuries past in Europe, these new colonies looked to strongly divorce themselves from the waning traditions of tying religion to Nation. Religious persecution, suppression and discrimination were things that drove minority or repressed religions to America and they had this strange notion that to have a different society that tolerated their religions they must *make* that society that did tolerate such differences. And while they were majoritarian followers of a single type of religion, they had seen that intra-religious warfare had killed more people and brought more suffering than could be tolerated by any religion that held to the decency of its practitioners and followers. That was a necessary divorce of culture that was amenable to the small town ethos that was forming up across the colonies, and that ethos goes far back in history, even beyond the near term Scots-Irish, and into deeper parts of Scandinavia and Central Europe.

Unlike the rest of Europe, that practiced 'Divine Right Monarchy', the strand coming from those northerly climes had a different viewpoint on all things religious and how to have a Nation. These peoples held a common, village assembly on an annual basis to determine the interpretation of the Law of the Land. In this the Lawspeaker was able to hold even the King accountable as an individual, and the Kings honored that basis as they would not have a Nation without such structure amongst their People. That moved into the Scots-Irish areas via contact during Viking expansion and changed the local laws to more closely follow this ideal. That infusion changed Law from something dictated by the Nation to something agreed to by the people of the Nation. This diffused over centuries into the general English and then British culture, but the highly clan and tribal based Scotts and Irish adhered to this as it was a form of governing that made much sense to them and gave much in the way of personal liberty while still holding individuals strictly accountable for their actions.

This makes a strong tie between the commonly held culture and the Law that upholds it. And as those were by and large rural communities that practiced this form of government, the actual settlement of a dispute was put off until the next local assembly. That waiting, be it mere days or up to a year, gave time for cooling off and reconciliation between the individuals involved. Thus an important part of the legal system was the social accountability of those people within that town, city or Nation. Such a deferred settlement system does not properly scale up to large formulations of settlements, thus the waiting period became that of awaiting adjudication rather than that of settling the dispute on personal terms. That change came to then reflect the basic adjustment that those trials, then, need be fair, swift and have societal feedback via the jury system. For these peoples this is an outgrowth of Law from below, not imposed from above. It is a means to hold those governing the Law accountable to standardized and regularized means that are given to it by society.

That conflict between Law from below and 'Divine Right' Law from above came into harsh and direct contact in the British Isles. While the Crown was slowly ceding rights it held to the People, those moving from that society wanted a society that was directed for and by the people, not the Crown. By not actually giving representation to citizens and imposing taxation without the input of those being taxed or plainly ignoring them, those people felt that their community was being dictated to from above without recourse of the commonly held system that ruled from below. The Crown could have done many things to assuage these citizens, but did not do so. The citizenry recognized their debts to the Crown, but wanted a more lenient pay schedule not enforced taxation. While this is a gross oversimplification of the colonies that would become the United State, the basis of the Precepts of that Nation were laid out along the communitarian lines of those things held in common amongst a diverse community of believers who did not wish to repeat the mistakes of their forebearers.

From the philosophical side such things as Free Masonry would play a part in this as those who followed that set of outlooks held much in common with those craftsmen that had become the basis for their name and meeting places. They, too, had contact with this more community based form of governance and used more southernly notions of democracy to play into that. And religion, particularly Christianity but also the Deists who did not follow the strict beliefs but the underpinnings of those beliefs, came forth to design something different: a society based upon its People as the ruling force. The Declaration of Independence put for the Precepts, or guiding light, of this New Nation and that its foundation was to be something accountable to man, not to King or God. This was a hard and necessary break with the past so that past ills would not be repeated in the New World. To do this required not only the Precepts and Revolution, but a final Government that would not inculcate either of those problems within it.

To have a common government accountable to men, it must be set up as representing those individuals within the society and adjust to them while putting none in danger due to divisions. One of the interesting side-lights of the final tumult leading up to the Constitutional Convention, during which the Articles of Confederation were leading the Nation to bankruptcy and ruin, is that the drafter of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, had carefully been given diplomatic duties in France. The Declaration itself nearly fractured the Colonies asunder and while high minded philosophy was fine for Precepts, they don't make good drafting of Government. The one man crucial to editing and rewriting BOTH documents was a man that did understand that this government must be something that is held by the People: Benjamin Franklin.

While being a man of deeply religious feelings, he also recognized the need to formulate things on a more basic and fundamental level to society. He had many trades and occupations during his life, from printer to diplomat to scientist to philosopher, and he so no boundary between these things. By experiencing so much of the richness of many ways of life he knew that this richness must be ensured by those things held common to all of the People so that *any* of them could lead such a rich life. He was the one who redacted the outright religious phrasing of the Declaration and put in the 'self-evident' language because if something was self-evident, you need not reply upon a Deity to hand it to you as it was already done and given as a fact of life. And while he did not formulate the KISS principle, its application is, indeed, self-evident throughout the Declaration and the Constitution. Those things which are 'self-evident' are held in common without regards to religion, race or any other thing and thusly needs no assertion of that evidence.

After the speech to open the Constitutional Convention Franklin then let the backers of the 'Virginia Plan' for divided Federal Government put their proposal forth. It took much hammering out, but this foundational concept of the structure of Government being divided, yet stable in the stresses of that division, is one still pertinent to any way of thinking about Government to this day. The actual drafting and final writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights seen as necessary first amendments to that document, still form a basis for a new way of looking at the structure of society and government and its relationship to its people. Nothing quite like it was really formulated before it, as it changed around the entire basis for government from top down to bottom up. To do this requires a recognized structure and the Constitution in this plan-view is something that is inherently simple and yet complex in its finality.

Within the Body of the Constitution that outlays the sections of Government that is common to the People, each section follows a Division as follows:

1) Responsibilities - Each section of Government is given harsh delimitations on its Responsibilities and given purview over oversight of them.

2) Means and Methods - This is what each section of Government can do and lays out the structural means for how they are to be accomplished.

3) Rights - Lastly Government is given limited Rights to achieve those Responsibilities through the Means and Methods it is given.

The 'Virginia Plan' sets forth a set of interior and exterior accountability systems so that within the Federal Government there is cross-oversight by each section of Government upon other parts of it. The exterior accountability are that this Government is accountable to the States and the People, and the States, in particular, while ceding many Rights to the Federal Government, retain all others and is given provisos for recovery of Rights if Federal Government is seen as no longer doing its job. Finally all Rights are held by the People who may change, edit or amend the Constitution in part, via amendment, or in whole via Convention open to All the States.

That Body of the Constitution so re-iterates this that it is taken that this is the entirety of the Constitution. Government, when it is given something to do, must actually do it, even if the means and methods and rights cannot fully satisfy those responsibilities. Then Government MUST come to the People for help. This indicates that the entirety of the Body of the Constitution is, in and of itself, a means and rights section of the entire document. That would indicate that there is a Responsibilities section before the Body telling what has those Responsibilities and what they are. And that is just the case as the Constitution starts with the Preamble starting with the famous words: "We the People..."

From the bottom up societal view of things via the Scots-Irish, this statement is a foundation of SOCIETY not GOVERNMENT. The outlay of all Responsibilities for everything that Government does is put upon We the People. When Government fails it is a failure of the People of the United States, not their Government. And as the Constitution hands out all of those things which MUST be accomplished FIRST via the Means and Methods given and the Rights seen as fulfilling those, it is the complete and utter responsibility of the People to see that all of the things handed to THEM get done FIRST. Government is just ONE way to do this because all other Means and Methods and Rights are held by the People who grant a very few of those to Government to have a stable society.

That is why Thomas Jefferson was left steaming in France: he put forth rights over community. With him at the Convention it would have dragged on for long, long months if not a year or more and be a fundamentally weaker document because it does not hold the People into the strictest accountability for everything done in their name. When the People elect Government to act in their Name they abide by those decisions, even if they disagree with them. This is a harsh and stark difference between the Declaration and the Constitution, in that it does not disperse responsibility along with rights, but concentrates it to the level of the individual. We the People agree to uphold the Law and the commonality that it gives us and agree to peaceful means to express opinions and try to change the minds and outlook of other Citizens against Laws seen as unjust. This gives continuity to society, while Jefferson is famously quoted as saying that it would be a 'good thing' for the country to have a revolution every 10 years or so. That was a non-starter for the majority of the People as they were sick to death about fighting and squabbles and wanted accountable government that would NOT force its ideas upon them. The Jeffersonian method would get government that tried to do everything that was 'right' and failing, while the 'Virginia Plan' put forward a few things a Federal Government MUST DO so as to succeed.

By doing that and creating a limited set of oversight areas for the Federal Government, the rest of the Responsibilities move towards the States and the People. The direct ordering of who has Responsibility and Rights, then, is:

1) We the People. We have all rights as a People and put forth common responsibilities that we agree to abide by first so that we may have a society in common.

2) The States. The States are given autonomy within the Federal Structure so as to have practicing difference in law and culture so long as regularity, but not identicality, of law is applied.

3) Federal Government. This is the last and least of Governments, although it is given awesome responsibilities to handle for the common good.

From this ordering of Responsibilities and Rights, We the People are put first and hold it all. This actually was the understood compact amongst the People up to the modern age, and the Federal Government was seen as generally distant, small, and not having much to do outside of wars. The less Federal Government *did* the better the Nation was. The modern age of industrialization changed that starting in the World War era of 1914 to 1945. The United States tried to switch back and forth from Mass Mobilization to small volunteer force and Mass Industrial Mobilization of the Nation. The needs for WWII were such that over half the economy of the Nation was devoted to it as *more* was being devoted to it by Germany, Italy and Japan. While German industrial advancement was always touted and seen as strong up to WWI and then again during the lead-up to WWII, in point of fact it was not a thoroughly mechanized economy as its military demonstrated: at its height only 60% of the German Armed forces were mechanized, and such things as horse transport were still used for things like field artillery. Italy was more a rural society with pockets of industry as was Japan, with centers of industrial activity. The United States distributed industrial expansion across the Nation and then found a few areas to concentrate it during wartime, mostly for vehicle and aircraft production.

To get *that* capability to actually command industry, powers were used by the Federal Government that were only rarely pulled out for dire necessity. It was highly unusual for the Federal Government to have such a deep level of activity in the affairs of the Nation, and the majority of the People much preferred it that way. The Depression Era programs that were installed just prior to that were actual late-comers to the recovery and only started to appear once recovery had already started. Industrial expansion and regrowth had already started by 1934 and by 1938 was in full swing. Some of the large 'public works' projects added to this, no doubt, and gave the United States added resources in the way of electricity, that had not been readily available before then. These resources were put to use for WWII and after that war a new, global enemy to the US helped to solidify that ranking of Federal Power. What was unusual and contrary to how the United States was formed was now the new 'normal'.

By doing this and inserting the artifact known as 'Big Government' into the agenda of the Nation, the Federal Government soon was seen as a source of *solutions* instead of being the last place to go to so as to ensure *rights*. What this did, however, was break the previous agreement that the People held all Responsibilities and only gave a limited number and limited Rights to Government to achieve those very few things. Moving to higher levels of Government to get things done at a local level removed local accountability from the equation and with them the Rights of the People to oversee these things directly. Concentrating power via the Federal Government is a direct erosion of the Rights of the People as it is done at the level of least accountability to the People. Those things should be few and far between, not a legion of programs to 'address the Nation'. Bottom up society was now turning into a Top down one, and Individuals lost feeling of connection to society by that formulation.

Here the actual structure of society is put at peril and it is this that Jacksonians abhor, above all other things. To have a society worth fighting *for* one must have the most possible say into that society and how it is run. The movement to 'Mass Society' removes that direct connection of the Individual and starts a process of isolation amongst the People. The commonality of non-infringement of rights and beliefs turned from a cohesive force of agreement to one of minoritarian pushing for that force to be diluted by 'social recognition of them within the law'. To Jacksonians the law does not codify what society is, but creates room for a common society to exist. By divvying up that common space you get the 'tragedy of the commons' in which no one cares for that which is common to all in preference of small segments 'getting what is theirs'.

Such things as segregation and racial laws are a divisive force between the People. Turning around and then wanting the problems codified into law forevermore is even worse than the original transgression as it tries to make a permanent separation of what is seen as a common good to the People as a whole. 'Getting yours' means that this piece you have taken removes it from the common for trivial reasons. Once segregation is removed, it is up to the People to determine, without recourse to defining what is 'right' in terms of the exact same terms used for the original division, of how to administer to the wrongs done. Because all of the rights that are being asked for as 'special treatment' are already held within the commonality of the People as Individuals to give or not as they see fit.

Top down enforcement of social change is contrary to the agreement held that the People find a way to work it out and resort to government as a last recourse to ensure that basic rights are upheld. Codify rights and privileges based on previous discrimination is, in and of itself, discrimination and seeking entitlement FOREVER for temporary misdeeds. And when such laws try to be generalized to 'class', then the conception of seeking permanent isolation from the totality of the community of the People is put forth and that is contrary to the system actually set up by the People.

One of the reasons I go through this is that Jacksonians, from all I have seen and read, are enamored of crafts and trades and the activities of same. Any common trade craft, be it carpentry, metalworking, engineering, or network design, requires understanding that the tools available have limits and that the system for making something must be understood before you actually set out trying to make it or change one that already exists. As an example, a plumber is needed to address a leak in a far off part of the house, but to understand the cause of the leak requires understanding the mechanical and physical components of the entire water system and the workings inside of it.

To address the leak requires removing pressure from the system and some draining and then actually finding the part or area at fault and examining it. A 'busted pipe' can have many causes that are due to simple, local things: poor fitting, improper seal placement, poor welding. However it can also be an indication of a much wider and systemic problem: improper pressure for pipe type, improper layout which causes stress on components, old pipe style which has gone brittle due to age and changes in crystal structure of the metal involved, heat strain for plastic piping. In these cases addressing the leak does not address the problem, which requires some addressing of the overall structure. So, you can pay a bill for a hundred or so dollars now, and then have a catastrophic failure later which puts the whole house in danger, or you can trust the plumber when he says: 'You know these old cast iron pipes from that company just weren't made right and you got a problem here.'

Society addresses such ills in a different manner when they are put forward within the Constitutional structure. Here discrimination and segregation are seen as problems locally which must be addressed, and that the proper flow throughout the system will then rebalance given time. Those that want absolute systemic change today, wish to rip out the entirety of that part of society and put in something that they hope will work better, but have no proof of that. In this case those doing the purporting have not addressed the structure as a whole nor made the case to society that such a complete and drastic overhaul so as to resection Rights is necessary. How is the cure not worse than the disease which has already received proper treatment? So the specific case is, as the Scotts would say: "Not proved."

The general problem of seeing the Federal Government as the FIRST place to go to for redress of social problems is, however, demonstrated by this. As designed the Federal Government is the last back stop to the Rights of the Individual to be upheld. It is not the first place for social redress which starts at the level of the People as Individuals. Going to the Federal Government to 'force change' upon society is thusly seen as an attempt to circumvent all of society and over rule the entirety of that society. That is not a conception of Government that fits within the Framework of all Individuals holding the Responsibilities of society and Government FIRST and then delegating small portions of those to actual Government to do. By putting the remedy FIRST at that highest level for enaction DOWNWARDS is antithetical to the system of Government as it is laid out. To change society first requires the free flow of Rights so that Responsibilities may be addressed, and then doing this thing as actually convincing the People to change society. To change how they do things.

Removal of a blockage to Rights is one thing.

Looking to overhaul the entire system because the flow needs to restart and fully use that part that was blocked is quite another. One of these over-riding 'fixes' to the Nation happened to address a temporary ill, and is causing far more grief today than it ever fixed as a solution. In the Depression one of the problems is that older folks were still looking for work and seen as stopping the flow of younger workers into the workforce. Thus was born the idea of the 'retirement age' and paying out money to those who retired from Federal coffers. The immediate point of the program was to address the temporary ill of unemployment and the possibility of older individuals not having money to scrape by on. To pay for this the Federal Government did two things: 1) went into debt, and, 2) raised taxes.

The debt, then was minuscule compared to what it would incur during WWII. The taxation, however, was permanent upon earnings. Thus those earning money would be paying to help older people retire. As a temporary solution, this is not much of a problem. Demographically the Nation could afford this as the number of workers far outnumbered the retirees by fair margin. Further, distributed investment capability was not available to the common man, so finding secure and minimal ways to grow funds via investment was a problem. The remedy before the Depression was: families. Anyone who could get any work in a family helped to support the entire family. While many people did lose jobs and homes, the vast majority did *not*. Stories from Depression era Buffalo of families with eight or nine people living in the same home to make ends meet are not uncommon. Children worked. Mothers worked. In-laws worked. Anything to get food on the table, which included the growing of vegetables in the backyard and raising some ducks or chickens, or buying same at a farmers market. By the time the actual program got put into place, the families had already overcome the worst of the Depression and were starting to use this new-found mobility to get homes elsewhere in town.

Then in WWII women and overage workers went to work as young men went to war. By the time those men returned home, they found that their sweethearts had good jobs and their parents had earned enough to move into the suburbs. America had truly mobilized when the pent-up wealth of the war years was released and an economic boom of unprecedented size and scope hit the Nation. Again, retirement payments were a small part of the Government and seen as an easy burden to carry. The Baby Boom, however, were to change the entire demographic system as a flood of children hit the Nation and then would grow old with it. And even with that economic expansion still went on, even when fighting the Cold War and having that eat up 8-10% of GDP. That military portion would remain relatively static as an amount, but the size of the economy would push down its proportion more and more. What was growing in proportion to expansion was the age of those moving upwards in years from the Baby Boom. Suddenly the more traditional replacement rate of children into the economy spelled for a looming disaster.

What no one has addressed, however, is that this Federal Program has been moving money from the hands of Individuals and then doing poor oversight of those funds. Typically the US Government returns an industrial low of 45-55% efficiency on work. What this means is that in typical private industry, the productive hours are measured as a percentage of hours worked. Thus, the average in private industry is 80%, meaning out of an 8 hour day you get 6.4 hours of real work done. The US Government, due to overhead, paperwork, oversight, multiple systems of accountability, and so on, gets only a 45-55% average productive time out of any hour. So the billions of dollars spent on this program have a relatively low return rate on the overhead, for something that should be a highly automated system. Further, the demographics are pushing things so that a larger portion of earnings are taken in by this program to pay for the larger number of retirees.

This has changed the outlook of Americans upon their lives and has also put into this kitty the idea of 'retirement years'. Now turning into 'retirement decades' and soon to be 'retirement half-life'. That last is a bit of a misnomer as it is applied to the active working life of an individual being equaled by their retirement life. And when the US starts to see a shortfall in labor the choices are multi-fold, but also limited by this arrangement: 1) import labor, 2) automate.

Option 3 is never put on the table: scrap the system as it is no longer needed and let individuals who now have wonderful investment opportunities to create their own retirement accounts and system do so. What this would do is remove the retirement age so that those who find working to be enjoyable and productive, even if they want to take a lesser job, to be able to do so. Further, anyone who has 'read the tea leaves' of the retirement system knows that its eventual collapse is inevitable due to demographics and has been preparing accordingly since the 1980's. The math is not beyond an individual to do, nor is finding good investment vehicles, nor is getting insurance that they can choose as trustworthy or not. Doing this would return a huge proportion of taxes paid to the Federal Government back to those doing active wage earning and let *them* decide how to invest or squander it as they please.

This is no longer the 1930's and the capability of the individual to get necessary help for long term investment is no longer a mystical land limited to the wealthy elite. Funds that address all sorts of things with distributed ownership and investment and track records and outlooks are available in a plethora, and individuals can clearly find this material for investment as they have been doing so for decades. And as this is the largest, single portion of the money going to the Federal Government, the increased distributed earned *wealth* would then infuse the Nation via spending and investment. And grow the economy even more than it is and would place a huge, one-time burden on the Government which would be duly paid off through normal, low taxation.

Here the Responsibilities of the individual are being taken by the Federal Government and direct oversight of how those Responsibilities are carried out are at the furthest and least accountable system for something that effects every single working individual in the Nation. This is antithetical to the construction of the Constitution and the Society that is to be built upon the Individual as part of the People. What has happened is Social Engineering on a huge scale with little accountability and much in the way of problems and a patronizing attitude that those working for a living are not smart enough to figure out how to invest their money or their time. By putting this bit of Social Engineering into play the Federal Government has taken it upon itself to decide for the People what is best for them. Their role for the general welfare is *not* to create a Welfare State, but to create a Nation in which the People can look after their own welfare and do it well.

This 'assistance' from the Federal Government comes at a high cost of time, money, lost wages, and lost investment opportunity. And all of it to address a temporary ill, which was already passing by the time the program got off the ground and fully running. By the post-WWII era it was wholly unnecessary as the investment of parents into their homes would start to pay rich rewards upon the sale of same, and those that did not own were already being offered better packages through their workplaces. When those started to wane private industry invented the widely divested and invested 'mutual fund' system. There have always been poor elderly in this society, but the ability of a family to look after such individuals and those capable of actually working to support themselves was a backbone of the United States. Today, many of those who are elderly and *want* to work, cannot because of this retirement age business. They work under the table or risk losing their steady Federal Payment... instead of having invested that for 20 years or more and depending upon private payments upon which they have personal oversight.

This is why Jacksonians look askance at the idea of a Big Government to solve problems: it is contrary to the system put in place to support society and it demeans individuals and removes personal oversight and accountability for decisions. Trying to put in place long lasting 'social reform' for temporary problems is contrary to the Individualistic basis for which Jacksonians see as the strength of the United States. Even when you make BAD decisions, you then learn from them and stop doing them and find a better way to make decisions so that you do not hit that same pitfall again. Jacksonians are all FOR helping those that life has handed a bum time to: the infirm, mentally ill and those that have just been unable to handle their lives to any meaningful end. To those that can work jobs are to be found so that the Individual builds self-respect and self-worth in doing something productive. To those permanently disabled help and succor is given freely and openly as is currently seen with the large number of charities addressing same. The Federal Government's role is not to dictate a permanent treatment for a temporary ill.

Because every time it does so, more of the Responsibilities of the Individual are lifted from them, and from the People as a whole. And society is lessened by each and every piece that is taken from it and put to poor ends, that do not justify the means and that loss.

The Modern Jacksonian - Chapter 1 - About the Author

My personal journey towards finding Jacksonianism.

Welcome to the strangest political tract you will most likely every lay eyes on, the rambling views of an individual that has come to recognize that no political outlook that is popularly held is held by him. In point of fact, I have ambled over the political landscape without adherence to much of anything and to know that journey I will start, most conveniently, near the beginning! Now isn't that a wonderful concept, instead of one of those movies where the end comes first and isn't really the end, you get the beginning at the beginning which is so very constructionist in its outlook.

That beginning must fairly begin in childhood, to which I will give you a thumbnail description of it as I saw it from my side of things, although other views would most certainly vary from this. I did not start life out as a Jacksonian by upbringing! I know, strange but true. The upbringing I *did* have was in a family oriented by its parents towards 'Scientific Socialism' which basically held to the works of Marx and DeLeon and gave pretty short-shrift to things thereafter. My parents were affiliated with one of the minor Socialist Parties that held to the very strictest adherence to Marx possible in outlook, but not in family life or activity. What was done is that this Party held to the European tradition of 'party gatherings' being more on the gathering and less on the political. With that the meetings centered around grills, backyard barbecues, day at the beach, holiday gatherings and the such like. Add in a few cases of beer, fruit punch and games for the kids and you have yourself a regular outing! The political diatribe part was pretty minimal, maybe a half-hour to an hour of one or two prepared mini-talks by regular party members. In theory just about anyone could address the gathering but, in practice, the few really well-versed ones did the brunt of that gathering after gathering.

I was coming to this from a basically middle-class background, although my extended family on the Polish side was definitively 'blue collar' working class with all but one or two working at jobs like long-haul trucking, construction, mill work, and heavy industry. My mother worked part-time as a school teacher then in real estate then cafeteria management and wound up in a clerical job for a friend of the family's company. My father was of Swedish lineage via Finland and that part of the family was sparse, with only my grandmother surviving into my early childhood. Although not unloving, he was a quiet man, but gifted at music, carpentry, basic steel work, electrical work and had a full time job as an electrical engineer at one of the major industrial companies. I was a late #3 in line and basically grew apart from my brother and sister as they were already moving out when I was properly growing up. Even with that the emotional ties to family *are* there and deeply held. But, unlike my brother and sister, I had a decidedly different outlook on life. None of us who were the children actually kept much to Socialism once we grew into the mid-teens as basic life experience was showing a different world than it was purported to be from the Socialist viewpoint.

These are NOT the hallmarks of growing up Jacksonian, from what I understand.

Temperamentally I am what the Myers-Briggs folks characterize as an INTP or as one of the books on that test put it: such a small minority of the population that they seem to be from a different world. That is me, your ambassador to a different world! I am *still* waiting for the much promised mothership, so have to do the best I can with what I have, unfortunately. Thus introversion and perspective cast me out or, as I saw it: 'What is up with people acting like that?' There is the other, and more chilling way to put it: 'He was such a *quiet* boy...' The postal career actually didn't look to good to me, however, so life would not take me there.

Now, with my father being an engineer he was interested in the sciences and that also infused over, while none of his other skills for doing creative things manually did. Thus I am not a skilled craftsman unless one counts the laborious hours of life spent in putting my own computers together. But that interest in the sciences would lead many places, the first of which is science fiction. And one of the greatest things about SF in that era of the early 1970's is that all of the prior works had been done under a totally different view of society. If you have ever read a science fiction story where the protagonist uses his or her know-how to do something to achieve good ends, then you have read about a Jacksonian. The listing of names is long, in the annals of SF, for that: Asimov, Clarke, Heinlein, Piper, Clement, Niven, Pournelle, Garrett, Blish, Anderson, Drake, Flint, Saberhagen, Anthony, Dickson, Foster, Card... and many, many more. I read voluminously of SF and because so much of SF is based on science and history, one must read those to get the actual context of the stories and more fully enjoy them.

From school I did get some of the basics, of course, on society, english, math and science. I did, however, pick up knowledge quickly, sometimes very quickly, and people were amazed at how deeply I understood concepts and entire organizations of thought and then examined them. My thinking process is highly non-linear, with multiple intertwining thought areas and organizations interacting on a constant basis. From my youngest recollection of actually solving real-life problems people were wondering how I came up with the solutions. I really thought that this was quite simple: describe the problem as fully as possible and the solution is tagged with those things and the solution space is obvious because there is a limit on what CAN be done. Note that this is not traditional 'deductive' reasoning nor fully 'inductive' either as it uses the realm of the 'possible' to automatically limit things. Once the known limits are in-place, the problem is stated, the solution space is engendered by the limits of that space and the feeds into, which must be amenable to the solution.

Simple in concept, but difficult to describe.

Now, the benefit of this way of approaching things is that *missing* areas become obvious immediately: there is a void in the problem and solution space and, thus, no ready answer can be found and requires more input. The absolute one thing that people despised about my solutions is that when they were 'attacked' or 'questioned' the actual solution already addressed their concerns or with minimal change would accommodate them. Time after time those coming to me with life problems or other problems of a 'real' sort found answers with me. My goal in life was NOT to be 'The Shell Answer Man'! Even worse were those that didn't carry out what the answer was fully and then complained about the results. Insufficient input on solution yields no solution.

With these descriptions, then the next bit of information should come as no surprise: I picked up on board war gaming at an early age and expanded upon that year after year. These are games that use a depiction of realistic of highly interlocking rule sets to give what can and cannot be done within the purview of the game itself. Thus, tank battles of WWII had constraints on movement, line of sight, line of fire, terrain crossing and so on. Realistic depiction of actual forces was accomplished and you could play out the result with an opponent. I took to that so much that I was often my only opponent and I learned to 'flip sides' of a game on a continual basis. This requires the mental capability of segregating knowledge and thought processes of each side so that there is no spillover. Difficult in practice, but it is a learned skill. One game, Dune, is a multi-faction game (which suits the book quite well) and as 'Prescience' is involved with one player actually getting some insight into the capabilities of other players during the course of the game, it was a natural. So much so that the other players told me that I could not play that faction. That was fine by me, as the method of understanding how factions worked was then apparent and shifting to a *different* faction did not diminish my play.

So there is where the 'warfare' part of Jacksonianism comes with me: from the understanding of warfare, why it is used, what makes it go, the infrastructure behind it, the deployment or not of forces, logistics... the reason that board war games were used by the military is that it taught the necessary thinking of warfare from the squad to the geopolitical level. And warfare is a natural outgrowth of human culture, although that is a bit further in the narrative, and so our cultures are designed to demonstrate *why* it is there. Add in social studies courses and one excellent instructor on the the construction of representative democracy and another on the Constitution and the actual framework for the entirety of the utility of warfare for Nations was done. Then along came Connections. That puts me right around the age of 16 and then how I thought, at least in large part was then made obvious.

From the plough to the ICBM is a continuous interconnected whole. The society that gives rise to all of the possible changes and interconnections *between* changes gives rise to the complexity of our world. That said, and what Mr. Burke does state but does not follow through upon, is that the underlying reasons driving each of these connections is simple and basic: human need and inquisitiveness. Good, and bad, we do that interconnecting on a daily basis ourselves and while the deep knowledge of any *single* piece requires the knowledge of a specialist, understanding the driving causation and possible interconnecting pieces does *not*. The first firm definition of how I thought was: Generalist.

Such knowledge does not lead to happiness, sweetness and all things good... mostly because of the INTP characteristics, the basic Nordic emotional influences of my father, and the overall approach to life by me as an individual. But that knowledge did help me to better understand my own thought and thinking structure and its interplay and the key knowledge that simplicity leads to complexity is one that is overlooked by many. The actually depressing thing about how the society at large organizes is that it does not recognize Generalists in anything but a "ne'er do well" sense. Life progressed, however, and my teachers were always so amazed at my insights and capability and hated the fact that I didn't score well on exams. The long form of writing, however, was prime to me and no English teacher ever worried about my capabilities. In fact one did question my daily change of books and I did answer truthfully that I had finished the previous. Every day. She asked how long I had been doing *that* and I estimated about 5 years or so. After a few eye-blinks came the response: 'You have read more than I have!' I nodded and thought nothing of it. She was 38 or so and I was 17. She was the English teacher and I was the student. I was, apparently, not your 'ordinary' student. And she didn't really appreciate that until a quick listing of the previous few months of reading were listed out to her, and it was mostly SF, but history, science, biography, warfare, art amongst others were all listed, the art being poetry in this case.

As to this 'never testing to the intelligence' concept, do remember that this may speak more to the measure of what intelligence is more than what is being tested on any given exam. Hitting a world history course the first thing we were given, day one, was a blank map of Europe. Everyone got 10 minutes. At the end I was carving out Lichtenstein and the Holy See and all sorts of other little pieces left out because the map only went for the major nations at that point in time. Today I could reason out which Balkan State is which, but it would take a minute or two. The instructor didn't understand how I knew them all, and the answer did set him back: I play Third Reich. A game from Avalon Hill or whatever they have been acquired into these days. Actually, there was quite a bit of European history that I did not know in-depth and promptly forgot details of soon after the course, but kept the general interplay knowledge so that reconstructing the information would be easy.

Apparently, not many other people do that little mental trick, either.

So a fast forward through high school and in my freshman year of college I was diagnosed as a Type 1 insulin dependent diabetic. To answer all the 'chickenhawk' folks: that was that. Truthfully, at that point I was not looking at a military career as my eyesight was not great to start with and emotional troubles finally led to that portion of my life imploding for some months after being diagnosed with diabetes. I was not a fun individual to be around at that point in my life. Took off a couple of semesters from college and reorganized my emotional setup and my mental state and restarted, with a couple of pieces not working great. Mathematics had reached its peak with me because of early computer programming courses. Yes, I was trained in higher math via learning computer programming of one of the most complex languages around, which was APL: A Programming Language. That did leave me with an intense interest in computers, which remains until this day. As a couple of side lights it left me as a 'cryptic coder' seeking brevity in code and it also ruined me for higher mathematics which I could program a machine to do because I understood the concepts of the math involved to do so. The first I was able to train myself out of and the second never really recovered to fine-tune quality. Math, like most of the rest of life, has limits, bounds, changes of rates and space, and all sorts of other things, so the conceptual space involved is utilized even though the actual process outside of a computer is not well understood.

University took me through many things as, to be a computer programmer, the University I attended required that heavy math load. So I wandered subjects for a year or so and settled on the true Generalist's Science: Geology. It is the single science that requires you to be able to talk with just about every other science in an intelligible fashion. And with advances in genetic theory spurred on by evolutionary theory, and extinction events happening in a non-uniformitarian fashion, all of the space sciences also came into the realm of geology, including astronomy and the motion of the galaxy and our star in relation to other stars over time. Mathematics forms the foundation of science, and if you can't define what you are measuring you are not measuring *anything*.

All of this is a continuous whole in my life and is cross-synthesized by my thought processes. As Stephen Jay Gould later said about Lamarckian concepts of selection, they may be right but were applied at the wrong scale and time-frame. To me ALL methods of thought have that connotation: it may not be right for one thing, but if it works as a consistent whole and as a methodology it may be applicable to something *else*. That means entire lines of strategy, tactics, logistics, genetic theory, astronomy, physics, chemistry, and, in point of fact, everything we DO as humans is amenable to this cross-fertilization and analytical re-application. And my mind knew no bounds of questions, although finding satisfactory answers was another matter entirely.

Now, as many have asked me about religion, I will say, truthfully, that I don't have one. It is correct to say that I have no belief in any god. But it is also correct to say that I fully comprehend the reasoning and need behind individuals looking for that and the manifestations of that need, in and of itself, points to something higher. As I live by cliches and such in life, seemingly, this one is absolutely appropriate to this field, although stolen from Mr. Spock in a Star Trek Episode (Amok Time): "Having is often not as good as *wanting*. This is not logical, but it is often TRUE."

Or as in the Movie Excalibur: "The Quest is THE Quest."

I see much that is 'good' with religions in being able to funnel this need by individuals to give them some form of answer that makes sense to them. By giving out things that are culturally adapted and comprehensible an *end* to a Quest may be given so that a newer one may be started that is less divisive for the soul and more fulfilling as life goes on. That is both good and noble to bring about such an end so that an individual can find some peace within themself and lead a better and more satisfying life, thereby. That said I see that across the ENTIRE panoply of religions, not just one. Some I do detest for their diminishment of individuals and for entreaties to do acts that harm, hurt and kill. Those things must be reconciled within the individual, but I, truthfully, see no good in the DOING of such things nor in their espousal. I detest those things in ALL religions that espouse such actions, regardless of culture or other meaningful things within that religion. The Act is wrong, and when given as something that is regular in *worship* or to appease some higher deific being, it is wrong.

Warfare waged for religious purposes, then, is wrong on many counts to my view. Waging it to *protect* yourself, your family, your neighbors or your Nation is something else entirely. Attacking to DEFEND is highly justified and Honorable. Attacking to accrete favor with a deity, gain power for oneself or one's Nation or out of pure hatred is unjustified, no matter what gloss it is given. That comes clearly across from all societies and cultures: those that fight without need and to gain power and control are hated. And the obvious plight of what happens if you do NOT defend yourself is also true: you are killed or enslaved. And when you fight back, you fight to WIN.

On religions I give honor to ALL religions and practice NONE and recognize the hard need of the Quest those within their religions are going through to find something of meaning for themselves. I appreciate *why* they want to spread it. And after saying 'No thank you' my preference is that those wanting to push their brand of it would go elsewhere. Because of all the rules I have for my own conduct this one remains the highest in this area of life: I will be a party to NO religion that forces ME to dishonor the decision of ANYONE in this area of their lives. And the follow up is: That any religion that does not respect MY wishes is one that I will NOT be a part of.

And that, most specifically, means YOURS.

To put it this way: I have read all the major works and tracts of the majority religions, their minority off-shoots and such to about the third degree out from the root stock. There is NO further return on investment for me in looking *again* because the basics needed to be understood along with the differences (n) number of times, until the actual systems of differences involved became apparent. Just as there is a limited number of actual stories that can be devised, although characterization, plotting, setting and timing are infinitely variable, the actual story TYPES are limited. From what I have seen, although I am not enough of a linguist, mathematician, religious philosopher and logician to give this a definitive 1.0 only the 'back of the envelope' 0.9 for my OWN views, there is a LIMITED number of possible permutations in religion type before patterns of differences show up that become common across ALL religions throughout the history of mankind. Devising a brand *new* religion would be the equivalent of creating a brand *new* story. And even if it is *done* that will not make it either right nor perfect. A brand new story type can still be BADLY TOLD the first time, for all of its novelty.

What will be done is the increase from the number of religions (n) in which ( n > 10 ) multiplied by the standard and non-standard number of deviations and their crossings which is larger than (n) and is a (!v) factorial minus a non-zero, but non total number that represents recurrent themes in which a difference makes no difference where (k) is a constant (!(n v) - (!n + !(v-k))) = R which is the total number of religions possible that are all highly variable within the original typific space and have non-commonality so that they can be differentiated easily by more than *name*. That, to me, as a non-mathematician but as an individual who has had to deal with such things in computers and programming, makes sense to yield a highly rich space because the variations are so high, but the actual numbers for the original types and their consistent themes are relatively low. Note that finding a new variation is also well exhausted, but that a new variation TYPE would then expand all religions as that variation gets applied to *them*. Because it is a factorial, the number of new spaces that open up within existing religious space goes up quickly, although decremented by the similarities in solution types. This is not a great rendition of my approach to the actual (R) that I perceive, but it comes pretty close to it as the myriad capability of people for inventiveness in this realm is limited by the actual types of religions that can be involved. Thus most people get picky over the (k) or how similar what they espouse is to what someone in a nearby sect that is 95 to 98% similar to them espouses. They see that 2-5% as major, while I, in all fairness, do *not* as it is swamped out by the (v) part of the equation and the similarity TYPE is recognized.

Someone could probably throw that into a proper equation and refine it, but for me it comes to a known quantity with slightly variable definitional space at the edges, but that is not a *wide* boundary but a *thin* one. What this does do, however, is show the actual solution space to the question: What is the meaning of an individual's life in this world of ours? Let us hope the answer is *not* 42.

Have I said yet that I do not think like anyone I know?

That said some will justly claim that there is no way to properly find the limits of that equation, and I will actually agree with that as I have to use a 'rule of thumb' and 'common sense' to the numbers and approaches involved. I cannot give a hard and fast setting to those numbers. And would you like to know *why* that is the case?

One of the greatest theoretical outlooks for how to look at human psyche was *not* fully started by Freud or Jung or any of those wondrous thinkers and philosophers. The greatest defect of ALL the social sciences is that they cannot put hard and fast definitions against what they want to measure. These are *not* sciences because of that thing.

From what I can see there is one and only one individual that actually proposed and scoped out the social sciences AS sciences. Do you know who I see that individual as being? Isaac Asimov and his idea of 'psychohistory'. By being able to put definitions on what the human behavior is, even in a 'mass' way, actual reasoning based on what is described can be done by people. This crosses some sort of sacrosanct boundary in that *numbers* will be applied to underlying described *personality traits*. Yes, human behavior would need to be defined in a numerically relevant way and then tested to ensure that the measurement and original definitions had meaning. It is a sad note for all of humanity that we have been so afraid of this that no one has put together a meaningful and mathematically measurable system of defining human personality, perspective and behavior. After you get out of the medical sciences and their recent advances, you are left in a void and cast adrift. In point of fact there is only one community that does this and has a feedback mechanism to help ensure that they have actually defined what they measured and are getting results to it. And the group that does this is one that will give no joy to you, I am sure.

Who are these people? These solons of insight?

Marketers.

They have all the necessary underpinnings to describe human behavior as it varies by geography, culture, ethnicity, age, and education. They must apply solutions to market things based on set parts of those divisions. And they get direct feedback on success or failure which can then be fed IN to their initial theories. No other social science yet devised has this within its characteristics. Marketing just may be the way forward to understanding all of human behavior and understanding it. That will most likely get the entire human race using the athletic shoe of choice in no time at all, but at least THAT will be settled.

Now to get back on course, all my gaming experience and love of science made one of two tracks possible for me: first was a technical job nearly anywhere, second was to continue on in academia and then look for an academic position. That latter held no appeal to me as going tens of thousands of dollars in debt to get higher education in Geology meant that I would be locked into academia with little chance to escape. This was during the 'oil patch' days when PhD's in Geology were good enough to get you a job flipping burgers right next to the English PhD's. The reason for that is the only way out via Geology was through the large petroleum firms that were *still* doing exploration, and as one of the staff of the Department told me: They prefer to hire Bachelor Degrees as they will be teaching all the advanced things and do NOT want to have to un-teach you what you learn in academia. That was a sobering assessment! Thus with a near-minor in CompSci, a Bachelor's degree in Geology one could be gainfully unemployed AND overeducated!

Note to the business community: if an individual is willing and capable to take a job at a wage offered, do NOT refuse them based on being 'overeducated' unless, like the oil firms, you have a good REASON not to. What I got from a couple of years looking were *excuses* not *reasons*. And that was a long search in which one of hundreds of applications filled out was to the Federal Government and the DoD as one Agency was looking for folks in the sciences with bachelor's degrees. I applied there and also to one of the National Parks that I had worked at after a volunteer stint there as they offered a *second* path through academia via government research. The DoD beat the Park Service by ONE WEEK. Either would have put my skills to use for the Nation and I would have adored working in the area I volunteered in, which was Yellowstone. That said, guaranteed advancement, interesting work and decent pay made the DoD a much more likely opportunity. And I would be helping the Warfighter!

So learning the ropes took a bit, but once done I was finally able to get moving through more interesting positions and became the 'pinball' of the Agency getting to touch on nearly every aspect of its work. And once my ability to deconstruct problems and find solutions was evident, I got moved into near-future systems procurement, then back to the warfighter assist area right after 9/11 by volunteering to help spell my coworkers who were digging up every shred of data to send out to the troops as they left for Afghanistan. From there I got into Advanced R&D and worked hard to help find new and better ways to put necessary information into the hands of those who could 'connect the dots' which went up and down the scale from the tactical to the geostrategic. Recently a medication has interacted with an underlying condition in my family and taken me out of service permanently.

But in that post-9/11 world I could feel that there was something *wrong* and terribly so about what was going on in the world and our approach to it as a People. I searched for answers and thought on many things and then came across the ongoing discussions at the USS Clueless run by Steven Den Beste. Things quickly fell into place when I saw that the synthesis of my outlook on life, warfare, and what was an HONORABLE way to act within the confines of the common agreement between the People of the United States led to only one direction.

I self-identified as a Jacksonian and the more I learned the more that fit until I also realized that it described an entire methodology of thinking in politics and personal outlook that fused the two and, because of its originating space, pushed it on NO ONE.

You cannot 'learn' to be a Jacksonian.

No one can 'teach' you to be a Jacksonian.

You can read and ask of yourself: 'Do I identify with this? Does it describe how my thoughts and emotions run from Nation to personal?'

Because it is a philosophy built upon the roots of simple concepts that are scale-free, their implementation changes with scale but the outlook of them does NOT.

If it is a good and honorable thing to be in common with those around you and support that concept, which we in latter days have called 'Nation', then you understand WHY honor is important at that scale and on the personal scale. You are ashamed of your own less than honorable acts and deeply ashamed when your Nation acts in such a way.

The just means to hold accountability is given by the methods held common between individuals that have been codified, and those move straight up to the Nation State level and interactions between Nations. As individuals we have Friends and as a Nation we have Friends and Friends need to be supported right after Family and just as stringently. And when as an individual we give and get allegiance between ourselves, that bond is also seen as the exact EQUAL to that of our Nation having an Ally that we bond with to better protect and understand each other. And you go to absurd lengths to help Friends and protect them and bail them out of situations they get themselves into and you expect the Nation to do the EXACT SAME THING. You never, ever desert a Friend and ALWAYS give them at least one chance to make up for any wrongs and know when YOU have done wrong and will make amends for doing so once you understand the wrong you have done. The loss of a Friend leaves a void in life, and the loss of a Nation that ours has been Friends with leaves a wound in the psyche that does not go away easily, if at all.

In times past Jacksonians would prefer to let the world ROT where it was so long as it did not bother home and family and Nation. Today the world has shrunk down to village size and we adjust by asking: 'Just what sort of idiot neighbors do we have to deal with?'

This outlook comes from old stock, beyond the mere Anglo-Saxon derived Scots-Irish. It transformed through those cultures, but the basics of it came from the Nordic cultures that heavily influenced village life before 1066 and the more Continental attitudes diffused into the Anglo-Saxon culture. That pollination into those realms meant that even when the world went into a chill, the new foundations of this thought survived to cross with Continental forms of democracy which were seen as an addition to the village based democracy of Nordic roots. Together an honor based form of democracy was created and moved into the New World via the Scots-Irish in the main, although many other cultures were also influenced by other means and methods to similar ends. This fusion into the Republic of the United States as a common and honorable means to HAVE a Nation is the maximum end of the scale for Jacksonians for identification: nothing BEYOND the Nation is wanted beyond Friends and Allies.

As such the Jacksonian outlook was to always disproportionately counter-attack as only a scoundrel would attack without fair warning and without cause. Jacksonians are very live and let-live folks, but if the bothering becomes harsh, the response is DEADLY. And as an ideological grouping, Jacksonians do not 'play around' with freedom, we LIVE free.

Or die trying.

From those common and 'simple' concepts comes such things as: the best government is small, local, limited and as representative as possible. You do not put things UP for higher government to do if you can get it done at a lower level or at the level of individuals.

One does not let *any* government dictate freedom as ALL government is accountable to sustain freedom, not dictate it.

And because the highest Honor that is held by Jacksonians is that which is held in common by the People of this Nation: the Nation *must* be supported to survive along the outlay of that document that tells what We the People agree to do and that government is one way to do it, but to get these things done is a responsibility held by All the Citizens of the United States.

It takes long decades for Jacksonians to have PROVEN to them that ANYTHING at a higher level of government is actually BENEFICIAL to the Nation and All of the People. A central bank took Jacksonians about 70 or 80 years to finally start to trust somewhat and we STILL want it to have the strictest possible oversight so it doesn't dictate to the Nation economically.

But, when reality slaps us in the face and we SEE that the world as changed we do the necessary thing and re-apply the scale-free views that we hold to them and start running our own lives accordingly. In this instance that is the shortening of the globe by time and distance due to technology. We adore the technology and what it gains us for personal freedom, but see the problems of it and then apply those things that have kept us safe for CENTURIES: honorable activities, accountability to responsibilities and upholding one's Nation by doing those things FIRST FOR THE NATION. Then to utilize the freedoms *protected* by those actions for ourselves in a manner that is personal but upholds the commonality of the Nation and due process.

Jacksonians are, by and large, disproportionately represented in the military. It is more than *just* a duty to serve and protect the Nation: it is an HONOR to do so and be seen as worthy of that BY THE NATION.

Those are the bonds of friendship and honor that we EXPECT the rest of the Nation to understand.

And now Jacksonians find themselves in this Global Village landscape and saying: "It's a village. What's the fuss all about?"

We continue to act in accordance with the outlooks we have, because they are Right, they are Proper, they are Time-Tested and they are JUST.

All of these folks all over the political landscape trying to make it sound much more confusing because it is international in scope have 'obviously' never been to a city council meeting. Unfortunately by outlawing the duel the rest of the Nation has forgotten how a bad council meeting could END if not properly managed. Now the village we are stuck in has no council, but things a bit more on the order of neighborhood watch committees and some common folks getting together to make sure our displeasure is felt when they do some trespassing and brick throwing through windows. We don't stand around bickering unless its just on how harsh the reaction will be... well, that's Jacksonianism for you.

What we don't ask is: 'Why do they hate us?'

The answer is: "Don't care, just want them to act civilized. If they don't, then they deserve some harshness after attacking me."

Usually Permanent Harshness so we don't have to put up with it from that individual again.

Jacksonians would much rather have a good talk over a beer or two or whatever to work something out BEFORE it gets that far. Violence is only the first resort when it has been visited upon us FIRST. And then there are no-holds-barred on the counter-attack and anything goes.

And when talking, if it is obvious that we are being suckered into a trap or someone is just trying to wear us down by not honestly dealing, we PREFER to just walk away from them. Really! "Don't like me, then to HELL with you."

So violence comes in about #3.

Hey we gave amicable talk a chance!

And then we even went beyond that until we realized the other guy wasn't dealing honestly!

And folks wonder why so many poker games became shootouts....

That goes for the personal to the International and Jacksonians really don't get this 'Realpolitik', 'realism', 'pragmatism' or other ways that seem to just be saying: 'Walk all over us.'

That just doesn't seem very 'realistic' and pretty much asking for a shortened life span or one led in dishonor.

That comes to no good end for a person.... or a Nation. Especially one seeking to be of Free People.

And so that is the basics in a nutshell of my strange life, how it has led me on many a path, the things I use and how I put them together. I get to complex conclusions by taking all the simple stuff into account and finding where it leads. If I don't like that then I include some more until it gets to a good and decent end that I can support.

So that We can live as Free People.

And not just talk about it while the iron collar goes around our necks on how maybe, now, we should defend our freedom.

But that is just me.

I think strange thoughts.

The Jacksonian Party Webring Home

This is the site of The Jacksonian Party Webring.

It is unlikely that you, as an individual, have come here by accident, although your reasons for doing so are your own.


Just who ARE Jacksonians?

As the creator of this site and as an individual trying to draft what it means to be a Jacksonian, I have put the basics together in this post: What it means to be a Jacksonian. Modern Jacksonians differ from their past brethren in that the modern world has removed such things as time and distance delays for travel and movement. While other philosophies and ideologies see this as a major change to the world, Jacksonians use their scale-free concept of how Honorable ideas may be promulgated between Friends and see that this is something that is equally applicable to the Individual and to the Nation. Thus, a 'Global Village' fits within all pre-existing constructs that Jacksonians use to approach life as a 'Global Village' is just a larger scale of the pre-existing 'Village' or 'Town' concept. Jacksonians, however, recognize the National separation between the 'Neighborhoods' of this 'Village' and adhere to the fact that such are created by the commonality between those individuals WITHIN those 'Neighborhoods'. To Jacksonians the highest allegiance that can Honorably be given is to that of Nation in which All the People of that Nation agree by common understanding what it means to HAVE a Nation.

Jacksonians, thusly, are not 'Globalists' or 'Transnationalists' as other folks in other 'Neighborhoods' have highly differing values and orientation to the world and we respect those differences. What Jacksonians do adhere to is supporting those 'Neighborhoods' or Nations that are the Friends and Allies of the United States. By using Friendship and Alliance as discriminating factors, Jacksonians parse out National differences and come to differing conclusions about the World than do other ideological orientations that are not scale-free, but highly scale-dependent. This means that the actual political outlook of Jacksonians adheres to the compact between the People of the Nation, known as the Constitution and *not* to other moral basis of religion, race, creed, ethnicity or carbonated beverage of choice. Jacksonians can 'agree to disagree' on many things and let the more involved 'moralists' try to figure out those things that need figuring. What cannot be done is to put at peril the full and complete Rights of the People as seen within the Constitution either in part or in whole.

All of this is placed within the context of the Preamble of the Constitution being the overall guiding framework for how rights are to be used and to what ends: Preambling and what it tells you about yourself.


Are Jacksonians 'liberal'?

Jacksonians adhere to the basic understanding of the Rights of Man being that of having the least hindrance from Government and the most Liberty for the Individual, but being fully accountable for those Rights and the actions taken using them. Jacksonians do believe that the Preamble of the Constitution, by being a statement starting with We the People actually IS the voice of We the People. That voice has clearly spoken for Individualism and support for the Nation by not empowering Government to do more than what little is given to it to do. In general, the 20th century move by liberals to socialistic ideas and ideals are contrary to this, as are those of the Transnational Progressivists. Jacksonians see that life and liberty of the People of the United States is worth FIGHTING FOR. Further, when Friends and Allies are put at peril due to the actions of others, the United States to BE a Friend or Ally should and MUST help them.

By disavowing attempts at 'global progressivism' Jacksonians support those Nations that are seeking the path of liberty and freedom and come to the United States for help in doing so in the manner of one being a Friend or seeking Friendship. As Friendship has reciprocity, those coming to be a Friend of the Nation must also open their Hearts and Minds to us as we do to them. When the Nation needs to remove a threat to it, or via its agreements to a wider set of Friends, those Nations to which the United States has helped out of the Grasp of Tyranny MUST be given help to stand up on its own so that the People there can come to some commonality on what they want to do next without the US pressuring them at every turn. There is no honor in that pressure if we truly believe that Peoples have all of their rights to liberty and freedom and are capable of acting to ensure it or NOT as they choose. We sorrow if they choose not to, but that is NOT up for the People of the United States to decide for them.

Finally Jacksonians do not see violence as a first or a "last" resort. In putting forth that, in putting forth that we are NOT wiser than other people in leading their own lives from the Personal to the International scale, and that Government is not seen as anything more than the 'backstop' of liberty and giving it nothing more to do than that, Jacksonians have fallen out of modern 'liberalism' and 'progressivism' views.


Are Jacksonians 'libertarian'?

Jacksonians approach life putting the Responsibilities handed to the Individual by the compact of the framework of the Constitution in a serious manner. Jacksonians observe that this framework within the actual body of the Constitution is one that follows this methodology: Responsibilities given, Due Process Means to Achieve those Responsibilities laid out, and then, Rights which are to be used to uphold those Responsibilities FIRST. Thusly, Jacksonians adhere to the Responsibilities that are required to build the Nation as the First and Foremost thing required of any of the People. Without having that basic direction and guidance, the free use of rights leads to dissolution of the commonality of the People and the disintegration of the Nation. Rights that are used to actually diminish the Nation are contrary to the Responsibilities given to us as Individuals and when methodology steps outside of Due Process the road to Anarchy and Barbarism is then laid out. Jacksonians walk the path to Civilization which requires that a Nation hold things in common FIRST and that those things be upheld so as to remain a Nation. When asked about such things, Honorable action is seen as that which upholds the words and concepts that bind the Nation together and are put forth via Just means to achieve that End.

By holding to commonality of Nation, that Individuals are to work in accordance with responsibilities set out by the People and in seeing Rights are to be used FIRST to uphold those Responsibilities, they have apparently fallen off the 'radar screen' of libertarianism. Further, by placing actions within context of Honor, a full scale divorce from libertarianism as it is promulgated in recent years is put forward.


Are Jacksonians 'conservative'?

Jacksonians use the basis of their foundational belief to put forth things that are outside of conservative doctrine, or when coming to similar ends have used wholly different means and understanding to get to those ends. Jacksonians do *not* believe in such things as 'Free Trade' being liberating and put forth that 'Free Trade' should be for those who DESERVE IT, those being the Friends and Allies of the Nation. Using this and other formulational bases, Jacksonians by placing religion to be in the Personal and Individual categorize those things that have basis only in a given religion, sect, cult or ideology the only test required of it in this world as set out by the Constitution: Can it be proven outside of that set of beliefs?

Thusly, Jacksonians keep to the original Concept of the Nation that the States serve as a means for the diverse People of the United States to TEST OUT ideologies and then have them brought forth for examination by the larger commonality of the Union. Those ideas that cannot find wider adherence or acceptance or have factual contra-indicators to them are held in abeyance for the wider Union. The United States is based on 'regularity' between the States and their activities, but not upon them being 'identical'. States can and must serve as the 'proving grounds' for ideas and ideologies and then, those States must abide by the larger commonality of the Union when they step outside of that which is seen as being 'regular' between the States as a whole.

By holding these things as an understanding of what it takes to be a People, Jacksonians have, apparently, fallen outside of the 'social' and 'economic' conservative traditions. And by keeping to the original tradition of religious institutions at the Founding of the Nation of not wanting *any* interference from Government in their affairs, the entire religious swath of conservatism seems to be at odds with Jacksonians.


What IS The Jacksonian Party?

The Jacksonian Party is the first 21st century party that uses those things given to us in the Constitution to actually *do* to make this Nation known as the Republic of the United States of America. By adhering to the Nation and keeping its Honor as the basis of our own, Jacksonians are attempting to fashion a means by which the entire Nation can survive and disenfranchise NO Citizen or duly allowed individual who is here legally under the Laws of the United States. To properly address this New Century and this New Era of Mankind, The Jacksonian Party puts forth that the original concepts for Individualism, Liberty and Just means to uphold them are as relevant today as they were at the founding of the Nation.

Many of the underpinnings of why there should be a Party of those who Hold No Party in Common has been put down in: The Reasons for The Jacksonian Party.

To address the fact that this is the electronic era of the purest form of individualism, The Jacksonian Party puts forth that it cannot BE an old-style party with a hierarchy To fit in the modern, interconnected world the emphasis of a Political Party must shift from ideas that were necessary when communication and transportation were expensive and impractical. The ills of the modern day political parties are rampantly manifest in that they work to keep themselves in power more than they represent any Will of the People. By having 'Guiding Committees' and 'Party Leaders' doctrine is put forth and foisted upon the Party membership, often in ways in which even voting AGAINST those things put forward still leaves individuals with nothing good or worthy of supporting. This concentration of political power is anathema to Jacksonians as it leads to corrupt practices and the institutionalizing OF those practices as they are given to be a 'good thing for the Party'.

Thusly the basic plan of The Jacksonian Party is given in: How to make The Jacksonian Party.

The Jacksonian Party looks to leverage the modern era of communications to help foster a common set of networked individuals who are willing to 'hash out' what it takes to move from a an online political party in 'conception' to one of 'reality'. To do this and to help weed out those that only seek to demean or diminish the works of others so that they can strut about on their own ego, some basic 'rules of the road' are put down in the following: Supporting Jacksonianism.

The Jacksonian Party thusly has ONE major rule that ALL who join must abide by: the 'put up or shut up rule'.

If you feel that something that any Jacksonian who is a member of The Jacksonian Party has put out as their viewpoint is wrong, it must be clearly stated WHY you think it is wrong and you must ALSO offer something BETTER. Running down individuals or ideas for ones own personal gratitude is seen as a despicable and deplorable action. Ideologues engage in that and have gotten this Nation heavily divided these past few decades and none of that is seen as a benefit to the Nation. To do something differently, Jacksonians adhere to this strange notion that one must, in all actuality, DO SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY! Yes, if you deplore a way that people attack without foundation, then do NOT do so on your own.

The excuse of the child for doing something because 'someone else did it to me' is neither reasonable nor right to an adult unless it is in the area of actual, physical attack. In all other things Jacksonians seek accommodation and use a 'live and let live' conception of the world. We prefer to work to make a better world and 'a more perfect Union' amongst We the People.

The Precepts of Jacksonianism clearly lay out the one place where this is *not* the case: warfare.

In this realm of activities Jacksonians believe that anyone who attacks the Nation *must* be stopped. Permanently. Here there is no 'reciprocity of equality' as the Nation has been put at jeopardy by those attacking it. As Steven Den Beste put it so succinctly in the post-9/11 world:

Will we forgive the Islamic nations, and work to remove the source of their anger? Will the United States begin to address "root causes" and work to remove them? You betcha, but only after the war has been won. Jacksonians remove the danger first, and only then work to make sure the danger never arises again. But a Jacksonian never rewards an enemy, never ever appeases one. Until the war has been won, "root causes" are a distraction. This is the reason why "if you kill Americans, you're dead meat."

If you attack the United States of America, then you should expect to die in return.

That, alone, clearly demarcates the difference between Jacksonians and 'liberal', 'conservative' and 'libertarian' ideologies.


What does one need to agree to so as to join The Jacksonian Party Webring?

These are the following that The Jacksonian Party will not abide by in this webring:

1) NO Adult or primarily pornographic websites. This is a party of commonality, not YOUR sexual interests or orientation. The Jacksonian Party does not discriminate AGAINST any sexual orientation so long as it be legal and between consenting adults. If your site has a MIX between your own personal sexual needs and stimulations and those of the political, then the following code is to be put in the post header of those things having sexual or pornographic nature: NSFW. Not Safe For Work.

2) No companies, corporations, consortiums or other group will be considered for this webring. It is a the Party of One, because as Andrew Jackson said: "One man with courage makes a majority." If you are joining and can only get webspace on same, then some ability to discriminate and ONLY have your outlook available must be given, usually by the web address. and have it clearly stated that these views you hold are NOT associated with any larger organizations and only with YOURSELF.

3) No religious institutions, non-profit organizations or, indeed, any organization of any sort. This is the Party of One and open to Individuals only.

4) Spam, advertising or any other form of email or circulation of ideas for commercial, religious, or other 'enlightenment' of individuals will NOT be tolerated. Jacksonians come together for the Good of the Nation, not to personally profit or spread news of your own personal prophet.

5) All individuals agree to the rules outlined in: Supporting Jacksonianism and then expanded to a full set of rules the Dumb Looks Still Free Commentary Policy. The short and sweet are: No personal attacks, The Mommy Rule, Civility, Actions and not intent, Adhering to the Constitution for all ideas, Limited Moderation. In any circulation of emails or comment threads where these things are not adhered to pertaining to things Jacksonian, the individual will have the 'Put up or Shut up' rule applied and asked to 'show cause' for such things. Excuses are not reasons.

6) No other Party affiliation is denigrated or lost by Individuals when joining The Jacksonian Party. That said, when a group of Party members needs to form an ACTUAL political organization within their State, individuals will be expected to SUPPORT that. Some States have this daft notion that one can only adhere to one party at a time, and so expect that one will lose other Party affiliation in preference to The Jacksonian Party or local formulation thereof. This is something that Jacksonians detest about the current system as it limits viewpoints to parties, but that can only be addressed by actually changing the system. So be it. If you think it is good for the Nation, then DO SO.

7) An individual must actually READ and either agree or post commentary, either on their website or via comment thread on their actual understanding of What it means to be a Jacksonian. Any emails sent to me will be posted in a separate place within The Jacksonian Party for that purpose. And, yes, a better way needs to be found to DO this. Anyone with skills and wanting to address this may read this post on how to help.

8) The Jacksonian Party has a Party Agenda Platform. Unlike other political parties, this is the actual platform individuals are expected to support or state clearly where and how they differ from it. It is hoped that providing a 'starting point' that a much better vehicle for moving good ideas forward can be made. It is up to each individual to decide for themselves what they do and do not support and WHY.

9) Anyone running for The Jacksonian Party must adhere to The Ethics Platform for Candidates. As in all other things of The Jacksonian Party it can be improved upon by commentary and individuals stating why they follow or disagree with it. Note that the entire concept of The Jacksonian Party is that of a non-centralized Party. It has NO TREASURY TO RAID. Excess money is given BACK after an election run. Individuals realize that incumbency is not a sinecure and that actually getting support from the People is necessary without forming a Political Machine. As Jacksonians decry these things in other Parties, we will NOT take them upon ourselves and do things like that.

10) Above all else Jacksonians adhere to the Constitution and the Preamble as the guidance on what is necessary to have a Nation and how Rights are to be used via Just Due Process means to fulfill the Responsibilities handed to us as Individuals within the greater setup of We the People. Thusly this document must be read and agreement to it understood as part of joining this webring: Preambling and what it tells you about yourself.

11) As a courtesy for people slipping through the webring, the actual ring code that is provided is to be put somewhere in the upper one-half of one's sidebar if at all possible. People need to find it so they do not get stuck at your site. That is part of this 'Civility' concept. Many of us keep long link lists and such around, but for folks traveling on a 'ring of ideas' they need to actually re-find the ring when they are done at your site.

12) To Join The Jacksonian Party Webring click on this link to enter your site info. Your Site ID should be something short and easy to remember, for this site I have used TJP1, as an example. I will be contacted and will carry it from there. You will receive a code snippet to be put into your sidebar. Once that is in place and published it will show up on my next search and then it will be activated. Hopefully, it will be as simple as that. To leave the Webring just remove the code snippet from the sidebar and contact me once you have done so.

That is it!

Notice that folks overseas can have Jacksonian ideas and are *welcome*. The Jacksonian Party sees that other Nations may have similar folks with this outlook and coming to understand each other and how to better fulfill Our Nations, even in disagreement, is vital to the future of this 'Village' we live in.

All content including logos and such are free for download either via the click and copy method or by asking me for such. Easy enough to zip them up and send them along.

The Jacksonian Party documents are available via the sidebar on this site and other musings of mine are interlinked there with my Dumb Looks Still Free site. As other sites come forward I will be revising that listing and breaking it out a bit more for easier finding of viewpoints and commentary or pointing to a site that will be doing those things.

As I said way back when on the first post of this site:

Welcome to the Jacksonian Party!

Better keep your pacemaker in fine trim and the valium handy.

You are going to need them.

And how true that remains!

Home/Join List

Next Previous

Random

alt-webring.com

For Webring Members
Site ID:


Password:

The Day of Democracy - The Jacksonian Party

This is a position paper of the author The Jacksonian Party.

Today is the Day of Democracy the day of the National Vote for Federal Offices and is the highpoint of democratic expression in the Republic.

It is saddening to see that the two 'Major Parties' will again sweep through the Union and offer nothing better than tired old nostrums to the People of the Republic. As an individual I find very little to admire about these 'Major Parties' and much that I find revolting. On issues of Domestic Policy and Governance, the 'Major Parties' look towards Election Day as 'Bring Home the Goodies Day' in which one or the other will gain some advantage in GETTING the 'Goodies' of the Republic for their backers. On matters of Foreign Policy we have a situation in which NEITHER 'Major Party' actually HAS a Foreign Policy outlook that they can adhere to even in the sketchiest way. Not even a 'Walk Softly and Carry a Big Stick' slogan. They have gone Beyond slogans, Beyond statements and Beyond adhering to anything that will unite and build the Nation as it is faced with diverse enemies around the Globe that work together to bring the downfall not only of the United States but of ALL Nations.

And in only one area is there stark contrast between the two 'Major Parties' and that is in warfighting. One wishes to entrust the entirety of the military campaign to the Generals and military and do nothing more and the other wishes to run as cowards in the face of the enemy so as to give them heart and chance at success at creating their Global Empire. Neither of these 'Major Parties' wishes to address the division of civilian control of the military because doing so actually REQUIRES that there be something that is stated as worth DEFENDING. And neither of these 'Major Parties' has done that thing. Then some idiots bemoan that there is 'no way forward' and that 'it was a mistake' even though their putative goals for some sort of an International Community were being UPHELD by those who went to war. By criticizing this that entire Wilsonian segment of the population has now stated that they will abandon ANY foundation of their concept of an International Community at the drop of a hat. A single drop of blood is too much for them and they faint at the sight of it.

Without an underpinning for a Foreign Policy these 'Major Parties' now stand FOR nothing Internationally. And thusly cannot even begin to state what they are fighting FOR.

Being anti-imperialist The Jacksonian Party offers that the Foreign Policy of the United States is to support Our National Friends and Allies, Support those that We have lifted from the Tyrant's Grasp and, when in war and others join in to make things difficult, that they are taking Part in the war and need to be ATTACKED when they take sides against the United States. As it is on the Battlefield so it is on the Economic side so that Friends and Allies and those saved from tyranny and Empire are strengthened to JOIN THE FIGHT OF FREEDOM. Those who take no sides are left alone, but when they seek commerce with the Nation they pay the price of Tariff to enter the National market. And the United States should not be in the business of encouraging sales of low cost weapons and equipment and goods of any sort to Our Common Distributed Enemies. They must be targeted by economics AND warfare Combined.

No Political Party is willing to say these things and adhere to these things as this requires actually knowing what you stand for in Support of the Union. The 'Major Parties' are stuck in the 20th century and that has little relationship to the 19th in which foes that were so very similar were, indeed, targeted for destruction by the People of the United States, not JUST Our Armed Forces. These Political Parties are drunk on the infusion of cash and taxation into the conceptual bloodstream of America and wish to exploit them to their own petty causes and no longer Build the Union.

I have likened this to not choosing a 'lesser of two evils' but as a choice between two well known evils: Satan - who will use means of law and holding only to the word of agreement to achieve his ends, and Cthulhu - in which chaos is means and ends entire and the end of all that is good is soon brought by ITS followers. You can decide for yourself which Political Parties stand where on that scale, but note that their END STATE is not to bring any Good to the Union but to enhance their Own standing ABOVE THE UNION.

Thus for the Honest Oxymoron of a Party must start the business of actually figuring out how a Party of Honor, Friendship and holding dearly onto Liberty and Defending it with Our Friends and Allies can be formed.

The author of this text has examined multiple ways to try on look forward on this so that a means of distributed ownership of ideas can be performed and that none that adhere to the core concepts of Modern Jacksonian Thought will be left out. Jacksonians do not care about your religion, do not care about the color of your skin and do not care about how much or how little money you make. Do you support the idea of HAVING an Honorable Nation in a way of Honor, Trust, Friendship and holding those things as dear to you as your Family?

That is the major deciding question for Jacksonians and all else grows out of what is necessary to HAVE Honor from the Nation so that We can be Honorable within it. If any ideology is put before THAT, then We, as a People and a Nation, are lost forevermore. And this requires that, as a People, We understand that the rest of the World will have to make its own decision about Us and join with us or NOT in security liberty and freedom. Jacksonians do not care about being loved and adored overseas, We do care that the Nation be RESPECTED. And We also Respect other Nations, by and large, so long as they do not take up against US. Those that seek to grow close as Friends and Allies are WELCOMED wholeheartedly as the cost of securing liberty and freedom is HIGH in blood and the more hearts and minds coming together to BE FREE makes this burden less awful and yet far more intense as any Friend or Ally lost to tyranny is a dagger straight to the heart.

The way to start The Jacksonian Party off, then, is to find a means and method that is open to everyone who holds those things that this site has put forth on in the main and yet allow for freedom of expression and advancement of ideas, both pro and con, beyond that. Further this method or set of methods *must* extend beyond the confines of the Cyber Realm and into this more concrete place of the Real World. Very few things have moved from in that direction AND kept up communications in two way fashion between those that do not have or want cyber connectivity and yet hold these conceptions of how to create Honorable Government in common.

Thus, the Cyber Side offers many possibilities while the cross-over capability is distinctly limited. It is observed that as cellphones move out into wider acceptance, that they use packet-based communications that gets internet routing and, thus, connectivity. So even those who think they are *not* internet connected will be through ownership of a cellphone. Likewise, as more devices offer greater services and choices to consumers, internet capability becomes a bundled in feature as the use of the packet-based IP network model works relatively well for many of them.

So first given are the Cyber Models:

1) Link lists and blogrolls - These, as witness, offer some commonality and community, but are limited and are mainly used as a method to ensure greater visibility in the internet communities. To a degree this is wanted, needless to say. But, having been an avid reader of blogs and such for some time, I will state that my 'click through' to another site is well below 1% due to blogrolls, and such contrivances. Thus the utility is greater 'common visibility' but not necessarily 'greater community'. So a definite 'to do' for visibility, and as I am the one least able to do it, I shall do so. Coming soon, The Jacksonian Party blogroll.

Anyone have a favorite that is: a) easy to use, b) easy to install for those joining, and c) isn't on some splendiferous upgrade cycle that takes it down for a few days every months?

2) Webrings - These, while more common in the early days of the cyber community, have seem to have fallen by the wayside. The conception of having an interest oriented ring of like minded folks talking, in the main, about things of common interest is a good one. Today, however, I so rarely see them as I wonder at the actual 'community building' that is done by them. But, my experiences in their use and utility is limited, but their low observability is noted. I have not seen pro/con of this conception and would enjoy hearing of experiences, in general, in the use of same either for topical browsing or expanding ideas within a topic. So, not necessarily coming soon, as this author has little insight into them.

3) Wikis - This grand conception seems to be perfectly made to handle this sort of communitarian idea. It allows wide-ranging input, but also keeps multi-level editing available so that rollback can be done in case something goes awry. The negatives of this are seen at any Wiki site that has any popularity - Topic Hijacking and the need for active oversight. So the old style Wiki concept is turning into a higher maintenance affair as use grows. Further, it is NOT proven to be self-policing for holding ideas 'on topic'. So the older style of Wiki is not seen as a good concept for this.

4) TiddlyWiki - Now this seems to have the solution space of the Wiki in mind and allow for all sorts of side-tracks and ellipses and giving individuals freedom to express themselves while allowing linkage to a more centralized concept and having the user have the capability to formulate a multipart, non-linear review of ideas and work products. Here the actual work time is in the up-front setup of the original page so as to ensure that it can be properly broken down and re-built by those downloading it for their personal use and enhancement. Further, some sort of uploading and versioning of ideas based on authorship can be done and more common references of ideas above and beyond the main ones can be constructed. Add this to major communitarian contributors who EACH have their own ordering of conception and hold certain blocks of ideas to be good and others not so good allows for a flexible community within a framework to self-define. The negatives are the high up-front time of getting the individual blocks made and ready for expansion and cross-linking with some possibility of allowing a reader end version review so that alternate ideas and texts can be presented *together*. Three or four years ago my mind might have been able to handle this, but today it is beyond me. I adore the simpleness of the concept, but the underlying structure of it and how to create it are beyond my reduced capabilities. I would be more than willing to find a host for this, if necessary, and find some way to fund it in perpetuity so that it will never go down. But, do note, since it is *just a web page* the entire THING can be downloaded by ANYONE and then re-established ANYWHERE. A bit of cross-linking and suddenly it becomes a coherent whole until older services die off. ANY insight on this is wanted along with anyone that has any view of how it actually works.

5) Co-authored blogs and other more widely held blogging. Very possible and I am amenable to such. Note that I do not claim ownership over ANY of my words or ideas so long as they are fairly represented in full or kept somewhere for that to be done. I would note that Blogger is not wonderful for this and I have some ethical qualms with Google in any event. I expect I will be decamping if I can arrange for something as simple to use without the Blogger-Bogdowns that I have witnessed. Recommendations of services appreciated, and I will be looking into my broadband provider, Speakeasy, once I finally get their service up and running for personal use. This also goes for any other solution space online. If it can be done BETTER, not necessarily CHEAPER via separate hosting, then I will look at that seriously.

6) Other, more closed communities online. This includes such places as virtual worlds (ex. Second Life), various 'forums' which require registration and such for control, and other means of linking, cross-linking and community forum creation. Mostly, the added overhead of these things are a major disincentive to individuals. Virtual worlds, of various sorts, usually have minimal hardware requirements and discriminate there, first, beyond any sign-up necessary. Online forums that I have witnessed go into a few modes: stagnation, 'burstiness' of thought, and turning into spamvertising lists. Of all of the online forums that I have seen only the Baen Book's Bar has had anything like a continual and pointed interest capability that has only needed some minor community policing. But, science fiction fans have such a strong drive towards fun ideas that this is not surprising, as witness the take-off of their 1632 community. From all of my experience Jacksonians have a lot of fun in the 'doing' and less so at the 'thinking' part, although that is highly descriptive of the pre-modern and definitely pre-online Jacksonian tradition. The online Jacksonian tradition is morphing as We play with ideas of Honor, Responsibility, Trust, Friendship, and upholding those things for Ourselves and the Nation.


Now the offline part.

The existing 'Majority Parties' have put a high bar to entry and continuation of political parties against any expansion of the system as it stands. While smaller parties are on the ballot, the entrenchment of the existing 'Majority Parties' and their attempts to undermine new parties has rendered that schema one that is difficult to enter. By getting into control they have stifled the formation of new parties and co-opted some ideas from them so as to fully undermine them by picking up 'slogans' and saying: 'Well, we aren't for everything, but we like the one or two *important things* so just vote for us and you will get those.' That, in short, is the PROBLEM with the 'Majority Parties', by undermining entirely new conceptions of Honorable and Honest Governance they kill the chances of those conceptions coming into any meaningful form of being for the Nation. This has killed Socialism, Free Soil, Know Nothings, and other Parties and movements. Strangely by trying to adopt the 'popular ideas' the 'Majority Parties' have also tended to pick up those things most detrimental to the Nation even while they have short term popularity. Free Trade was a good 19th century conception, but with such low cost of manufacture now available it only makes cheap arms available on a Global Basis to Our Enemies. Subsidizing retirement, stolen straight from the Socialists, has now put in a money transfer system from the young to the old and removed responsibility and oversight of personal choice and direction from the People in that area and putting a huge burden on the Nation.

That is why The Jacksonian Party stands APART from other Parties. The Jacksonian conceptions are not ones that are amenable to slogans, not amenable to the 'complex' and 'nuanced' thoughts of the current Political Elite, but are on the much more profound basis of: Simple and Honorable ways of doing things lead to complex and rich ends while not endangering liberty. Every conception that this author has put forward is an attempt to demonstrate how We the People truly ARE this Nation and it is Ours to lose if We do not take responsibility FOR IT. All other Parties push doctrine and 'coalitions' as the way forward to 'majority' for the next election. They do not Build anything anymore and stand only for Themselves. Jacksonians stand for Ourselves, but as individuals and never want to see the responsibilities of Individuals to Guide and be a part of this Nation to be diminished by ANY ideology, concept or nostrum put forth to 'solve the ills of the day'. Much ill has come of THAT and such is no longer a way forward. So each and every idea given is SUPPORTED by its basic underpinnings to Honor, Responsibility, Due Process, Rights, Accountability and Individualism. Any attempt to 'steal the idea' and put it into a 'Majority Party' also drags the rest of the underpinnings right along with it. Shear out the underpinnings and the idea falls flat on its face.

Thus to gain traction in the population, the first thing to be done is to put forth these ideas in Honorable Means and Method so as to identify what it is Jacksonians stand FOR. Thus the Honest Oxymoron of The Jacksonian Party needs to actually come together at some point, but from the DISTRIBUTED MEANS that the current enemies of the Nation utilize. They use it to tear down, and We must use it to build and to demonstrate that Honest, Simple and Straightforward ideas that can be understood are Honorable for the Nation.

The traditional means of this and establishing 'idea space' is via the dead-tree method: books and pamphlets. This also means that The Jacksonian Party remains in conceptual space until enough people in a locale start to realize their commonality OUTSIDE of the Cyber Realms. Cross-over between these spaces does and should happen so that organizing can be a mixed hybrid of Cyber and Locale based.

Thus a book proposal to cover this. Many thoughts have gone through my head on this since I am the damned fool to have thought this up and I, apparently, can state a simple thing now and again while killing off an encyclopedia to do so. So be it. I have little left to me outside of this in my life and I should still be able to take a break now and again. Unlike Bill Whittle, I am *not* writing FOR book form or anything close to it. I am trying to encapsulate solutions and show how I think of the problems and the entire solution space left up to Us as a People. I disdain any 'two-sided' conception and never throw out anything unless it does not fit in the solution space. As others have noted: I seem to pack more ideas in a single paragraph than most people put into an entire posting. That is the encapsulation process at work, so that the entirety of the problem space, solution space and actual solution definition can be done in Open and Honorable means.

I have read quite a lot and can think of no other book that is written in such a manner. The Connections book, to mirror the series, did so, but only out of the original series necessity to have full encapsulation done for each television episode. One may recognize that the proposal space for The Jacksonian Party follows more in line with this and the knowledge web concept. That book, however, never sold greatly nor any of its follow-ons and constructing a book that is readable, comprehensible and still presents the original ideas in a cohesive manner is tricky.

Advice is necessary at this point because the time investment by me will be huge. I have scant few hours of minutes a day of coherent and cohesive thought and those are unpredictable. Much of when I am *not* posting is spent in that condition. And I also know that my grammer, syntax, spelling and all sorts of other wonderful things, like dangling participles and the such like, make my works very idiosyncratic: they reflect my thought process directly.

What I cannot do is write a book on the Historical Underpinnings of Jacksonianism.

I CAN address the modern, cyber connected Jacksonian and how adjustment is made to a 'Global Village' because that is something that is immediately comprehensible to Jacksonians: it is a village, somewhat lawless and there are limits as to what can be done. Sounds damned familiar to me, looking at the villages, cities, towns and neighborhoods of the Nation.

The other way is the 19th century method of 'manifesto writing'. Well, that seems to be a bit smaller than a book and a bit larger than an article. And, from the manifestos I have read, they seem more geared towards diatribe and the expounding over immediate ills rather than addressing the concepts being presented. Jacksonians use Honor, responsibility and Method to *address* ills, so those are forefront while the ills are seen as temporary until addressed. Note that this is NOT how the current 'Majority Parties' or other ideologies see the World. They put ideological ends FIRST and then use any means to get them. Jacksonians use honorable means FIRST to get to an understandable and JUST end. Yeah, we actually do seem to think that 'to do good we must do RIGHT'.

So pamphlets and 'manifestos', may be out of the question, save as the encapsulated documents of the type I have already described. Those are, basically, already written. So, if you like the idea you download it, fix anything that doesn't make sense to you in the way of spelling and such, post it and then give original credit, take the editors credit and publish it yourself! Hey, we are the craftsmen, tinkerers and such like, aren't we? Writing is a trade and craft and when the content is given away freely, then you are in DIY land. Want something local to distribute? You have a computer and a means to use it! Want me to sign off that I want NOTHING from anything you make? Fine by me! Drop me a line and will do that in writing. Or just throw this all under the Creative Commons license or some such. Any ideas in that realm greatly appreciated.

The small stuff I cannot DO for YOU. That is why the Armed Forces CAN'T waste their time going after distributed networks of terrorists: it isn't their JOB as We have given it to them. It is OUR JOB as a People. We should be doing it for THEM so that they can spend time getting rid of the ugly NATIONS while We the People take on these non-Nation State sorts of wartime threats. You, the reader, are NOT my co-dependent individual: you are an Individual and I want you to be free to promulgate good ideas to build the Nation. The Jacksonian Party will have NO TREASURY to rob blind: it is your money to spend, spend it YOURSELF. You know better than any damned party on how to spend your own money to get the things done that you see need doing.

The reason that making The Jacksonian Party is so damned difficult is that it is NOT top-down. It does NOT dictate ideology. It does NOT attempt to push itself on ANYONE. What it does do is give outlet for formulating Good Ideas for the Nation that are Honorable and Understandable and come to complex and yet fully comprehensible conclusions. By not wanting to ACT like the other 'Majority Parties' The Jacksonian Party must be something wholly different than has ever graced this poor planet of Ours in its weary time circling the sun. And because we do NOT hand responsibilities over to a 'Party Organization' that means the slack must be picked up by those doing the promoting.

That is a cost trade-off for ANYONE. For me to get a *book* done, that means my postings will be spare unless I can find some damned simple way of just siphoning my already written content over into book format. And since these ideas have so little espousal in Academia, the Press, and in Politics, I am damned sure I cannot find any HELP from a large publisher on that score. So it will not be a book with a press run of 10,000 copies, but some damned vanity thing that will sell a few tens of copies. A few of you have told me this is worth it.

Very well.

But realize that putting together new solutions will not be something I can do in ADDITION to getting a book done.

These websites will stagnate.

That is a damned hard choice to make as this Nation is heading into the most dangerous era it has ever confronted because it has FORGOTTEN how to BE a Republic that actually stands upon its foundations. This is a hard and dangerous choice to make, as regularizing what I *have* put out now will mean that I cannot concentrate on what is going on in the *present*. That is why I have not and will NOT make my ideas sacrosanct and try to make anything off of them: I want the widest and most free distribution of them possible. Steal them, make them better and give the minimal credit and go forward. I cannot control you, only you can do that. The only thing I can do is remove the legal overhead and feeling of wanting me to be *included*. The tagline in my emails only asks for fair representation and you know the two alternatives I give for attribution?

1) A Jacksonian
2) A Citizen of the Republic

Either of those is FULLY and HONORABLY acceptable to me. And, as I slog through trying to create a damned book, I will choose one of those or possibly alternate them since it is Print On Demand. And the only cost for them will be of the printing and delivery and not ONE PENNY MORE. Then I will make the resultant file, most likely in PDF, FREELY AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOADING.

And then, to top it all off, as I have ZERO want for recognition, ZERO want for attribution and ZERO capability to even ensure I can be coherent and awake for any appearance, this book will have ZERO marketing by me.

Even before my body placed me within the Land of Grey, that was my outlook.

There will be some posting as I try to figure out a way forward. Once started I will be present via my absence.

Because this is the Day of Democracy.

And I agree as one of the People to take the responsibility for Building something for the Republic seriously.

That sure, as hell, means more than JUST VOTING.