text:
The Story of Rhodesia/Involvement in WWII

Outbreak of War
When Britain declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939 following the invasion of Poland, Southern Rhodesia issued its own declaration of war almost immediately, before any of the dominions did. Huggins backed full military mobilisation and "a war to the finish", telling parliament that the conflict was one of national survival for Southern Rhodesia as well as for Britain; the mother country's defeat would leave little hope for the colony in the post-war world, he said. This stand was almost unanimously supported by the white populace, as well as most of the coloured community, though with World War I a recent memory this was more out of a sense of patriotic duty than enthusiasm for war in itself. The majority of the black population paid little attention to the outbreak of war.

The British had expected Italy—with its African possessions—to join the war on Germany's side as soon as it began, but fortunately for the Allies this did not immediately occur. No. 1 Squadron SRAF was already in northern Kenya, having been posted to the Italian East African frontier at Britain's request in late August. The first Southern Rhodesian ground forces to be deployed abroad during World War II were 50 Territorial troops under Captain T G Standing, who were posted to Nyasaland in September at the request of the colonial authorities there to guard against a possible uprising by German expatriates. They returned home after a month, having seen little action. White Rhodesian officers and non-commissioned officers left the colony in September and October 1939 to command units of black Africans in the west and east of the continent, with most joining the Royal West African Frontier Force (RWAFF) in Colony of Nigeria, the Gold Coast and neighbouring colonies. The deployment of white Rhodesian officers and NCOs to command black troops from elsewhere in Africa met with favour from the military leadership and became very prevalent.As in World War I, white Rhodesians volunteered for the forces readily and in large numbers. Over 2,700 had come forward before the war was three weeks old. Somewhat ironically, the Southern Rhodesian recruiters' main problem was not sourcing manpower but rather persuading men in strategically important occupations such as mining to stay home. Manpower controls were introduced to keep certain men in their civilian jobs. The SRAF accepted 500 recruits in the days following the outbreak of war, prompting its commander Group Captain Charles Meredith to contact the Air Ministry in London with an offer to run a flying school and train three squadrons. This was accepted. In January 1940 the Southern Rhodesian government announced the establishment of an independent Air Ministry to oversee the Rhodesian Air Training Group, Southern Rhodesia's contribution to the Empire Air Training Scheme (EATS).

Huggins set up a Defence Committee within the Cabinet to co-ordinate the colony's war effort in early 1940. This body comprised the Prime Minister, Finance Minister Jacob Smit, Tredgold and Lieutenant-Colonel Ernest Lucas Guest, the Minister of Mines and Public Works, who was put in charge of the new Air Ministry. About 1,600 of the colony's whites were serving overseas by May 1940 when, during the Battle of France, Salisbury passed legislation allowing the authorities to call up any male British subject of European ancestry aged between 19 and a half and 25 who had lived in the colony for at least six months. The minimum age was reduced to 18 in 1942. Part-time training was compulsory for all white males between 18 and 55, with a small number of exceptions for those in reserved occupations. On 25 May 1940 Southern Rhodesia, the last country to join the EATS, became the first to start operating an air school under it, beating Canada by a week. The SRAF was absorbed into the British Royal Air Force in April 1940, with No. 1 Squadron becoming No. 237 Squadron. The RAF subsequently designated two more Rhodesian squadrons, namely No. 266 Squadron in 1940 and No. 44 Squadron in 1941, in a manner similar to the Article XV squadrons from Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Early Deployments
No. 237 Squadron, based in Kenya since before the start of the war, had expanded to 28 officers and 209 other ranks by March 1940. By mid-1940, most of the officers and men Southern Rhodesia had sent overseas were in Kenya, attached to various East African formations, the King's African Rifles (KAR), the RWAFF, or to the colony's own Medical Corps or Survey Unit. The Southern Rhodesian surveyors charted the previously unmapped area bordering Abyssinia and Italian Somaliland between March and June 1940, and the Medical Corps operated No. 2 General Hospital in Nairobi from July. A company of coloured and Indian-Rhodesian transport drivers was also in the country, having arrived in January.

The first Southern Rhodesian contingent despatched to North Africa and the Middle East was a draft of 700 from the Rhodesia Regiment who left in April 1940. No white Rhodesian force of this size had ever left the territory before. They were posted to a variety of British units across Egypt and Palestine. The largest concentration of Rhodesian soldiers in North Africa belonged to the King's Royal Rifle Corps (KRRC), whose connections with the colony dated back to World War I. Several Rhodesian platoons were formed in the KRRC's 1st Battalion in the Western Desert. A company of men from the Southern Rhodesian Signal Corps was also present, operating in tandem with the British Royal Corps of Signals.

East Africa
Italy joined the war on Germany's side on 10 June 1940, opening the East African Campaign and the Desert War in North Africa. A Rhodesian-led force of irregulars from the Somaliland Camel Corps—based in British Somaliland, on the Horn of Africa's north coast—took part in one of the first clashes between British and Italian forces when it exchanged fire with an Italian banda (irregular company) around dawn on 11 June. Two days later three Caproni bombers of the Regia Aeronautica attacked Wajir, one of No. 237 Squadron's forward airstrips, damaging two Rhodesian aircraft. Italian forces entered British Somaliland from Abyssinia on 4 August 1940, overcame the garrison at Hargeisa, and advanced north-east towards the capital Berbera. The British force, including a platoon of 43 Rhodesians in the 2nd Battalion of the Black Watch, took up positions on six hills overlooking the only road towards Berbera and engaged the Italians at the Battle of Tug Argan. Amid heavy fighting, the Italians gradually made gains and by 14 August had almost pocketed the Commonwealth forces. The British retreated to Berbera between 15 and 17 August, the Rhodesians making up the left flank of the rearguard, and by 18 August had evacuated by sea. The Italians took the city and completed their conquest of British Somaliland a day later.

No. 237 Squadron embarked on reconnaissance flights and supported ground assaults on Italian desert outposts during July and August 1940. Two British brigades from West Africa arrived to reinforce Kenya's northern frontier in early July—the partly Rhodesian-officered Nigeria Regiment joined the front at Malindi and Garissa, while a battalion of the Gold Coast Regiment, also with Rhodesian commanders attached, relieved the KAR at Wajir. The British forces in East Africa adopted the doctrine of "mobile defence" that was already being used in the Western Desert in North Africa—units embarked on long, constant patrols to guard wells and deny water supplies to the Italians. The British evacuated their north forward position at Buna in September 1940, and expected an attack on Wajir soon after, but the Italians never attempted an assault. Boosted considerably by the arrival of three South African brigades during the last months of 1940, the Commonwealth forces in Kenya had expanded to three divisions by the end of the year. No. 237 Squadron was relieved by South African airmen and redeployed to the Sudan in September.

Rebasing at Khartoum, No. 237 Squadron undertook regular reconnaissance, dive-bombing and strafing sorties during October and November 1940. Meanwhile, the Southern Rhodesian Anti-Tank Battery arrived in Kenya in October and, following a period of training, received 2-pounder guns and joined the front at Garissa around the turn of the new year. No. 237 Squadron was partially re-equipped during January 1941, receiving some Westland Lysander Mk IIs, but most of the squadron continued operating Hardys.

The British forces in Kenya under General Alan Cunningham, including Rhodesian officers and NCOs in the King's African Rifles and the Nigeria and Gold Coast Regiments, as well as the South African 1st South African Infantry Division, advanced into Abyssinia and Italian Somaliland during late January and February 1941, starting with the occupation of the ports of Kismayo and Mogadishu. The Italians retreated to the interior. No. 237 Squadron meanwhile provided air support to the 4th Indian Infantry Division and 5th Indian Infantry Division during Lieutenant-General William Platt's offensive into Eritrea from the Sudan, attacking ground targets and engaging Italian fighters. One of the Rhodesian Hardys was shot down near Keren on 7 February with the loss of both occupants. Two days later, five Italian fighters attacked a group of grounded Rhodesian aircraft at Agordat in western Eritrea, and wrecked two Hardys and two Lysanders.

Platt's advance into Eritrea was checked during the seven-week Battle of Keren (February–April 1941), during which No. 237 Squadron observed Italian positions and took part in bombing raids. After the Italians retreated and surrendered, the Rhodesian squadron moved forward to Asmara on 6 April, whence it embarked on bombing sorties on the port of Massawa. The same day, the Italian garrison in the Abyssinian capital Addis Ababa surrendered to the 11th (East Africa) Division, including many Rhodesians. During the Battle of Amba Alagi, Platt and Cunningham's forces converged and surrounded the remainder of the Italians, who were commanded by the Duke of Aosta at the mountainous stronghold of Amba Alagi. The viceroy surrendered on 18 May 1941, effectively ending the war in East Africa. No. 237 Squadron and the Rhodesian Anti-Tank Battery thereupon moved up to Egypt to join the war in the Western Desert. Some Italian garrisons continued to fight—the last surrendered only following the Battle of Gondar in November 1941. Until this time the partly Rhodesian-commanded Nigeria and Gold Coast Regiments remained in Abyssinia, patrolling and rounding up scattered Italian units. Around 250 officers and 1,000 other ranks from Southern Rhodesia remained in Kenya until mid-1943.

North Africa
In North Africa, Rhodesians in the 11th Hussars, 2nd Leicesters, 1st Cheshires and other regiments contributed to Operation Compass between December 1940 and February 1941 as part of the Western Desert Force under Major-General Richard O'Connor, fighting at Sidi Barrani, Bardia, Beda Fomm and elsewhere. This offensive was extremely successful, with the Allies suffering very few casualties—around 700 killed and 2,300 wounded and missing—while capturing the strategic port Tobruk, over 100,000 Italian soldiers and most of Cyrenaica. The Germans reacted by despatching the Afrika Korps under Erwin Rommel to shore up the Italian forces. Rommel led a strong counter-offensive in March–April 1941 that forced a general Allied withdrawal towards Egypt. German and Italian forces surrounded Tobruk but failed to take the largely Australian-garrisoned city, leading to the lengthy Siege of Tobruk.

The Rhodesian contingents in the 11th Hussars, Leicesters, Buffs, Argylls, Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, Durham Light Infantry and Sherwood Foresters were transferred en masse to Kenya in February 1941 to join the new Southern Rhodesian Reconnaissance Regiment, which served in East Africa over the following year. The Rhodesians in the 1st Cheshires moved with that regiment to Malta the same month. The Rhodesian Signallers were withdrawn to Cairo to form a section handling high-speed communications between Middle East Command and General Headquarters in England. The 2nd Black Watch, with its Rhodesian contingent, took part in the unsuccessful Allied defence of Crete in May–June 1941, then joined the garrison at Tobruk in August 1941. No. 237 (Rhodesia) Squadron was re-equipped with Hawker Hurricanes the following month. Rhodesians made up an integral component of the Long Range Desert Group (LRDG), a mechanised reconnaissance and raiding unit formed in North Africa in 1940 to operate behind enemy lines. Initially made up of New Zealanders, the unit's first British and Rhodesian members joined in November 1940. It was reorganised several times over the next year as it expanded and by the end of 1941 there were two Rhodesian patrols: S1 and S2 Patrols, B Squadron. Each vehicle bore a Rhodesian place-name starting with "S" on the bonnet, such as "Salisbury" or "Sabi". From April 1941 the LRDG was based at Kufra in south-eastern Libya. The Rhodesians were posted to Bir Harash, about 160 km to the north-east of Kufra, to patrol, hold the Zighen Gap and guard against a possible Axis attack from the north. For the next four months they lived in near-total isolation from the outside world, an exception coming in July 1941 when they and a group of airmen from No. 237 Squadron celebrated Rhodes Day together in the middle of the Cyrenaican desert.

In November 1941 the British Eighth Army, commanded by General Cunningham, launched Operation Crusader in an attempt to relieve Tobruk. The British XXX Corps, led by the 7th Armoured Division ("the Desert Rats") with its Rhodesian platoons, would form the main body of attack, advancing west from Mersa Matruh, then sweeping around in a north-westerly direction towards Tobruk. The XIII Corps would concurrently advance north-west and cut off Axis forces on the coast at Sollum and Bardia. When signalled the Tobruk garrison would break out and move south-east towards the advancing Allied forces. The operation was largely successful for the Allies, and the siege was broken. The Rhodesians of the LRDG took part in raids on Axis rear areas during the operation, ambushing Axis convoys, destroying Axis aircraft and pulling down telegraph poles and wires.From late 1941 the LRDG co-operated closely with the newly formed Special Air Service (SAS), which also included some Rhodesians. The Rhodesian LRDG patrols transported and supported SAS troops during operations behind Axis lines. The LRDG also maintained a constant "Road Watch" along the Via Balbia on the north coast of Libya, along which almost all Axis road traffic from Tripoli, the main Libyan port, had to travel east. The LRDG set up a watch post about 8 km east of the Italian Marble Arch monument, and teams of two men each recorded Axis vehicle and troop movements in shifts throughout the day and night. This information was relayed back to the British commanders in Cairo.

Rommel advanced east from January 1942, and won a major victory over the Eighth Army, commanded by Lieutenant-General Neil Ritchie, at the Battle of Gazala in May–June 1942. The Axis soon thereafter captured Tobruk. During the Axis victory at the "Retma Box"—part of the British-devised system whereby isolated, strongly fortified "boxes", each manned by a brigade group, formed the front line—and the subsequent Allied retreat, the Southern Rhodesian Anti-Tank Battery lost five men killed, nine wounded and two missing; 37 were captured. Rommel's advance was stalled in July by the Eighth Army, now headed by General Claude Auchinleck, at the First Battle of El Alamein in western Egypt. Two months later the Rhodesians of the LRDG took part in Operation Bigamy (aka Operation Snowdrop), an unsuccessful attempt by the SAS and LRDG to raid Benghazi harbour. The SAS raiding force, headed by Lieutenant-Colonel David Stirling, was discovered by an Italian reconnaissance unit, prompting Stirling to turn back to Kufra. The Rhodesians, meanwhile, were led into impassable country by a local guide, and swiftly retreated after being attacked by German bombers.

Southern Rhodesian pilots played a part in the siege of Malta during 1942. John Plagis, a Rhodesian airman of Greek ancestry, joined the multinational group of Allied airmen defending the strategically important island in late March and on 1 April achieved four aerial victories in an afternoon, thereby becoming the siege's first Spitfire flying ace. By the time of his withdrawal in July he had been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross twice. The British finally delivered vital supplies to Malta on 15 August with Operation Pedestal.

Back in Salisbury, the Southern Rhodesian government was coming under pressure from Britain to put its armed forces under the purview of a regional command. Huggins decided in late October 1942 to join a unified Southern African Command headed by South Africa's Jan Smuts. This choice was motivated by a combination of strategic concerns and geopolitical manoeuvring. Apart from considering South Africa a more appropriate partner in geographical, logistical and cultural terms, Huggins feared that the alternative—joining the British East Africa Command—might detract from the autonomous nature of Southern Rhodesia's war effort, with possible constitutional implications. A shift in the deployment of the colony's troops duly occurred. For the rest of the war the majority of Rhodesian servicemen went into the field integrated into South African formations, prominently the 6th Armoured Division.

El Alamein
The decisive victory of Lieutenant-General Bernard Montgomery's Eighth Army over the Germans and Italians at the Second Battle of El Alamein in October–November 1942 turned the tide of the North African war strongly in favour of the Allies, and did much to revive Allied morale. The Rhodesians of the KRRC took part in the battle as part of the 7th Armoured Division under the XIII Corps, forming part of the initial thrust in the southern sector.

The Rhodesian Anti-Tank Battery under Major Guy Savory also fought at El Alamein, supporting the Australian 9th Division as part of the XXX Corps. The fighting around "Thompson's Post" between 1 and 3 November was some of the fiercest Rhodesians took part in during the war. Hoping to knock out the Allied anti-tank guns before counter-attacking, the Germans concentrated intense artillery fire on the Australian and Rhodesian guns before advancing 12 Panzer IV tanks towards the weakest point of the Australian line. The Australian six-pounders had been largely disabled by the bombardment but most of the Rhodesian guns remained operational. The Rhodesian gunners disabled two Panzers and seriously damaged two more, compelling an Axis retreat, and held their position until being relieved on 3 November. One Rhodesian officer and seven other ranks were killed and more than double that number were wounded. For his actions at Thompson's Post, Sergeant J A Hotchin received the Distinguished Conduct Medal; Lieutenants R J Bawden and H R C Callon won the Military Cross and Trooper P Vorster the Military Medal.

The KRRC Rhodesians were in the forefront of the Allied column pursuing the retreating Axis forces after El Alamein, advancing through Tobruk, Gazala and Benghazi before reaching El Agheila on 24 November 1942. They patrolled around the Axis right flank until being withdrawn to Timimi in December. Tripoli fell to the Eighth Army on 23 January 1943, and six days later Allied forces reached Tunisia's south-eastern frontier, where Italian and German forces manned the Mareth Line, a series of fortifications built by the French in the 1930s.

Tunisia
The Mareth Line constituted one of two fronts in the Tunisia Campaign, the second being to the north-west, where the British First Army and American II Corps, firmly established in formerly Vichy-held Morocco and Algeria following Operation Torch in November 1942, were gradually pushing the Axis forces under Hans-Jürgen von Arnim back towards Tunis. After von Arnim won a decisive victory over the Americans at the Battle of Sidi Bou Zid in mid-February 1943, destroying over 100 US tanks, the Eighteenth Army Group was formed under the British General Harold Alexander to co-ordinate the actions of the Allied forces on both Tunisian fronts.

The Eighth Army under Montgomery spent February at Medinine in south-eastern Tunisia. Expecting an imminent attack by the Axis, the Eighth Army mustered every anti-tank gun it could from Egypt and Libya. The 102nd (Northumberland Hussars) Anti-Tank Regiment, including the Rhodesian Anti-Tank Battery under Major Savory, duly advanced west from Benghazi and reached the front on 5 March 1943. The Germans and Italians assaulted Medinine the next day, but failed to make much progress and abandoned their attack by the evening. The Rhodesian gunners, held in reserve, did not take part in the engagement but were attacked from the air. The Rhodesians of the KRRC, now under the 7th Motor Brigade, moved up from Libya during early March. No. 237 (Rhodesia) Squadron, which had spent 1942 and the first months of 1943 in Iran and Iraq, returned to North Africa the same month, with the future Prime Minister Ian Smith in its ranks as a Hurricane pilot.

Montgomery launched his major assault on the Mareth Line, Operation Pugilist, on 16 March. The Rhodesian Anti-Tank Battery, operating with the 50th (Northumbrian) Infantry Division, took part. The Allies advanced at first but the weather and terrain prevented the tanks and guns from moving forward, allowing the 15th Panzer Division to counter-attack successfully. A flanking movement by the 2nd New Zealand Division around the right of the German forces, through the Tebaga Gap, compelled an Axis withdrawal on 27 March. The Rhodesian anti-tank gunners fought their last action in Africa at Enfidaville, 50 km south of Tunis, on 20 April. The KRRC Rhodesians meanwhile took part in a long outflanking march which brought them to El Arousse, 65 km south-west of Tunis, the next day. British armour entered Tunis on 7 May 1943. The Axis forces in North Africa—over 220,000 Germans and Italians, including 26 generals—surrendered a week later.

By time Tunis had fallen, few Rhodesians remained with the First or Eighth Armies; most were transferring to the South African 6th Armoured Division, then in Egypt, or making their way home on leave. Out of the 300 Southern Rhodesians who had joined the KRRC in Egypt, only three officers and 109 other ranks remained at the end of the Tunisian Campaign. The Rhodesian Anti-Tank Battery retraced many of the movements it had taken during the campaign as it returned to Egypt. "Left for Matruh at 0830 hours today," one Rhodesian gunner wrote. "Camped at night on the identical spot where we camped in June 1941. It gave me a queer feeling to look back and think how many of us are missing."

Dodecanese
Southern Rhodesia was represented in the Dodecanese Campaign of September–November 1943 by the Long Range Desert Group, which was withdrawn from the North African front in March 1943. After retraining for mountain operations in Lebanon, the LRDG moved in late September to the Dodecanese island of Kalymnos, north-west of Kos and south-east of Leros, off the coast of south-west Turkey. In the fall-out from the Armistice of Cassibile between Italy and the Allies, which had been concluded in the first week of September, the Allies were attempting to capture the Dodecanese so the islands could be used as bases against the German-occupied Balkans. Most of the Italian forces had changed sides; the LRDG found itself in an infantry role, acting as a mobile reserve for Italian troops.

The Germans swiftly mobilised to expel the Allied forces and launched heavy air assaults on Kos and Leros. Without fighter support, the islands' defence was soon precarious; the LRDG and the rest of the troops on Kalymnos were withdrawn to Leros on 4 October after the Germans won the Battle of Kos. German air assaults on Leros intensified during late October, and at dawn on 12 November 1943 the Germans attacked Leros by sea and air. During the ensuing Battle of Leros, the LRDG Rhodesians at Point 320, commanded by Rhodesian Captain J R Olivey, their position's guns and withdrew before counter-attacking and retaking the point the next day. They held that position for three more days, during which they learned that the Germans were winning the battle. On 16 November, Olivey decided that holding the point any longer was pointless and ordered his men to split up, escape by any means possible and re-assemble in Cairo. Over half of the unit reached Egypt.

Italy
The largest concentration of Southern Rhodesian troops in the Italian Campaign of 1943–45 was the group of about 1,400, mainly from the Southern Rhodesian Reconnaissance Regiment, spread across the South African 6th Armoured Division. The 11th South African Armoured Brigade, one of the 6th Division's two main components, was made up of Prince Alfred's Guard, the Pretoria Regiment (Princess Alice's Own) and the Special Service Battalion, each of which had a Rhodesian squadron of Sherman tanks. The other, the 12th South African Motorised Brigade, comprised infantry—the Witwatersrand Rifles, the Natal Carbineers and the Cape Town Highlanders, the last of which had a large Rhodesian contingent. There were also two Rhodesian artillery batteries—the original Rhodesian Anti-Tank Battery and a newer unit of Rhodesian field gunners. After a year's training in Egypt, the division sailed to Italy in April 1944, landing towards the end of the month at Taranto. No. 237 Squadron, now flying Spitfires, rebased to Corsica the same month to operate over Italy and southern France.

The 6th Division moved north-west from Taranto to take its place as part of the Eighth Army alongside the US Fifth Army. It took part in the fourth and final Allied assault of the Battle of Monte Cassino in the second and third weeks of May 1944, helping to force the Germans out, and thereafter advanced north-west up the Liri valley to join the Allied forces at Anzio and advance onwards to Rome. After wiping out a small German force about 50 km east of the Italian capital on 3 June, the 6th Division advanced north and captured the town of Paliano, then doubled back to the south-west and moved on Rome, which was reached on the morning of 6 June. A Squadron, Pretoria Regiment—that unit's squadron of Rhodesian tanks—entered the city as part of the division's vanguard.

The German commander Albert Kesselring fought a stubborn delaying action, gradually withdrawing his armies north with three Allied columns in pursuit, the 6th Armoured Division leading the most westerly spearhead of the Eighth Army in the centre. The mountainous terrain and the effective use of anti-tank weapons by the retreating Germans made the Allies' superiority in armour less decisive and slowed the Allied advance north to the banks of the Arno between June and August 1944, during which time the Rhodesian tank squadrons took part in Allied victories at Castellana, Bagnoregio and Chiusi. By the end of August 1944 the German forces in Italy had formed the Gothic Line along the Apennine Mountains, and the 6th Division had come under the command of the US Fifth Army. The difficulty of using tanks in the mountains led to the Rhodesians of Prince Alfred's Guard temporarily adopting an infantry role, using dismounted tank machine-guns to support the Natal Carabineers during the fighting for Pistoia during early September. The Southern Rhodesian Anti-Tank Battery meanwhile converted partially from guns to 4.2-inch mortars. The South Africans and Rhodesians met with fierce resistance from the 16th SS Panzer Grenadier Division, but helped push the Germans northwards towards the Reno river.

Hoping to repel Allied advances towards Bologna, the Germans took up positions on Monte Stanco overlooking the main roads towards the city. Two Allied assaults on the mountain—one by an Indian battalion, the other by the Royal Natal Carabineers—were repulsed. A third, larger attack at dawn on 13 October provided the Rhodesian Company of the Cape Town Highlanders with some of the fiercest combat they encountered in Italy. Advancing up the slope on the Allied right flank while being fired on from two directions, they suffered heavy casualties but achieved their objective and held it. Both Rhodesian artillery batteries provided support during the assault.

When the line stabilised in November 1944, the portion occupied by the 6th Armoured Division extended for 16 km along the heights over the Reno River. The Rhodesians of the Cape Town Highlanders patrolled nightly around the village of Casigno for the next three months. Some of the tank crews, including the Rhodesians of the Special Service Battalion, were temporarily reassigned to infantry duties to assist in these patrols. Many of the Rhodesians had never seen snow before, but on the whole they adapted well, taking up winter sports such as skiing during time off duty. The Rhodesians of the Special Service Battalion received new, more heavily armed tanks in November–December 1944. In February 1945 the 6th Division was relieved by the American 1st Armoured Division and moved to Lucca, 15 km north of Pisa, for rest and reorganisation. The Rhodesian Anti-Tank Battery was refitted with M10 tank destroyers. The Spitfires of No. 237 Squadron, meanwhile, took part in assaults on German transport in the Po Valley around Parma and Modena.

Balkans & Greece
After the Battle of Leros, New Zealand withdrew its squadron from the Long Range Desert Group, compelling the LRDG to reorganise itself into two squadrons of eight patrols each. A Squadron was composed of Rhodesians and B Squadron comprised British troops and a squadron of signallers; around 80 of the officers and men were from Southern Rhodesia. The group was reassigned from the Middle East Command to the Central Mediterranean Force in early 1944, and deployed to the Gargano peninsula in south-eastern Italy, where a new LRDG headquarters was set up near the seaside town of Rodi. Britain hoped to compel the Germans to commit as many divisions as possible to south-eastern Europe so they could not be used on the more important fronts closer to Germany. In June 1944 the LRDG was assigned to operate on the western coast of Yugoslavia, with orders to set up observation posts, report the movements of German ships and undertake minor raids. The successes of Josip Broz Tito's Yugoslav partisans in Dalmatia led the Allies to despatch small patrols into Yugoslavia and Albania to contact partisan leaders and arrange co-operation with the Allied air forces. Several Rhodesian patrols from the LRDG were selected to undertake such missions during August and September 1944. Yugoslav partisans subsequently indicated targets for Allied bombing missions, with some success. From September, members of the LRDG's Rhodesian squadron under Captain Olivey undertook advanced reconnaissance in the Peloponnese peninsula of southern Greece. Landing at Katakolo, they made their way inland to Corinth and, along with the British 4th Parachute Battalion, entered Athens as the Germans departed in November. The Rhodesians of the LRDG spent November and December helping Greek forces to garrison an Athens orphanage against supporters of the communist Greek People's Liberation Army. Four Rhodesians were killed.

The LRDG returned to Yugoslavia in February 1945, operating around Istria and Dalmatia, where Germany still held portions of the mainland and certain strategic islands. The Germans had heavily mined the southern Adriatic and were attempting to cover their shipping by moving only by night, close to shore, and heaving to during the day under camouflage nets. The LRDG was tasked to patrol the coast, find the ships and report their locations to the air force for bombing. This it did with success. It remained in Yugoslavia for the rest of the war.

The heightened vigilance of the German garrison as the war entered its final phase made these operations especially hazardous, particularly as they were often attempted at extremely close quarters. On several occasions Rhodesian patrols only narrowly escaped discovery. During one action, two Rhodesian patrols catered for the possibility that Germans might be listening to their transmissions by communicating in Shona, an African language. The LRDG's last actions of the war, in April and May 1945, were to help Tito's partisans capture German-held islands off Dalmatia.

Spring 1945 Offensive in Italy
Kesselring's forces in Italy retained their formidable defensive positions in the northern Apennines in March 1945. The 6th Division rejoined the line in early April, shortly before the Allies launched their spring 1945 offensive, Operation Grapeshot. The units including Rhodesians took up positions opposite Monte Sole, Monte Abelle and Monte Caprara. The Rhodesian 25-pounder guns were posted slightly forward of their former positions, and B (Rhodesia) Squadron, Prince Alfred's Guard, moved to Grizzana. The Special Service Battalion provided armoured support to the 13th South African Motorised Brigade.

The South Africans and Rhodesians launched a two-pronged assault on the German positions over the road to Bologna at 22:30 on 15 April 1945. The Cape Town Highlanders' advance up the steep cliffs of Monte Sole was obstructed by a German minefield that guarded the peak. The Rhodesian officer commanding the leading platoon, Second Lieutenant G B Mollett, took a section of men and dashed through the minefield to the summit; for this he later received the Distinguished Service Order. Hand-to-hand fighting on Monte Sole continued until dawn, when the Germans withdrew. The Witwatersrand Rifles meanwhile took Monte Caprara. The Cape Town Highlanders took Monte Abelle late on 16 April, advancing under heavy artillery fire to the summit before clearing it of Germans. The regiment lost 31 killed and 76 wounded during these actions, including three Rhodesians killed and three wounded.

This victory contributed to a general Allied breakthrough in the area, and by 19 April, the 6th Division's armour was moving towards Lombardy and Venetia as part of the Fifth Army's vanguard. American and Polish troops entered Bologna on 21 April. The South Africans and Rhodesians advanced north-west towards the Panaro river. The Special Service Battalion's Rhodesian squadron, moving forward alongside the Cape Town Highlanders, and the Rhodesians of Prince Alfred's Guard took part in numerous engagements with the retreating German rearguard, and suffered several fatalities.

The 6th Division crossed the Po near Ostiglia on 25 April and, after resupplying for a week, began a speedy advance towards Venice, aiming to cut off the retreat of elements of the German Fourteenth Army. The South Africans and Rhodesians advanced through Nogara and Cerea, crossed the Adige early on 29 April, and then made for Treviso, 19 km north of Venice. The retreating German forces were by this time in such disarray that, during its advance from the Po, the 11th South African Armoured Brigade took prisoners from eight German divisions. On 30 April, the 6th Division joined up with British and American forces south of Treviso, and cut off the Germans' last escape route from Italy.

The German forces in Italy surrendered unconditionally on 2 May 1945, while the 6th Division was moving north-west; at the time of the announcement it was near Milan. Twelve days later the 6th Division held a victory parade of its 1,200 guns, tanks and other vehicles at Monza racetrack, 16 km north of Milan. The Rhodesians separated from their vehicles after the parade, then spent May and June 1945 as occupation troops in Lombardy before returning home.

Britain, Norway, and Western Europe
Southern Rhodesia's fighting contributions in Britain and western Europe were primarily in the air, as part of the much larger Allied forces. Rhodesian pilots and Allied airmen trained in the colony's flying schools participated in the defence of Britain throughout the war, as well as in the strategic bombing of Germany and other operations. Rhodesia provided the only RAF flying ace of the Norwegian Campaign of April–June 1940, Squadron Leader Caesar Hull. Later that year "The Few", the Allied airmen of the Battle of Britain, included three pilots of Southern Rhodesian birth—Hull, Pilot Officer John Chomley and Flight Lieutenant John Holderness—of whom two, Hull and Chomley, lost their lives.

Two of the RAF's three Rhodesian squadrons, Nos. 44 and 266, operated from England during the war. No. 266 (Rhodesia) Squadron, a fighter squadron based in Cambridgeshire for most of the duration, was initially only nominally Rhodesian, being manned by a mixture of British and Commonwealth personnel, but it received more airmen from the colony gradually and was virtually all Rhodesian by August 1941. Initially flying Spitfires, it switched to Typhoons in early 1942. It took as its motto the Sindebele word Hlabezulu ("Stabber of Skies") and first went into action over Dunkirk on 2 June 1940, after which it fought in the Battle of Britain. The squadron's duties thereafter included patrolling, protecting convoys, sweeping around northern France and the Belgian and Dutch coasts, and escorting bombing raids over France and the Rhine.

No. 44 (Rhodesia) Squadron, based in Lincolnshire on the east coast, was a heavy bomber unit, and part of No. 5 Group in RAF Bomber Command's front line. Unlike the other two squadrons designated as "Rhodesian", No. 44 Squadron never had a Rhodesian majority, despite efforts to so populate it. Initially equipped with Hampdens, it became the first RAF squadron to convert to Lancasters at the end of 1941. It played a prominent part in the attack on the MAN diesel factory at Augsburg in April 1942. In March 1943 No. 44 Squadron took part in the Allied bombing of cities in northern Italy, including Genoa and Milan, as well as targets in Germany such as Wilhelmshaven, Cologne and Berlin. From early 1944, No. 266 Squadron took part in ground attack operations over the Channel and northern France, operating from RAF Harrowbeer in Devon. The squadron also escorted Allied bombers embarking on or returning from raids, protecting them from German fighters. Larger petrol tanks were fitted to the Typhoons to increase their range. In May 1944 the squadron was visited by the Prime Minister, who had been knighted and was now Sir Godfrey Huggins. Over the next month, in preparation for the imminent Allied invasion of Normandy, the Rhodesian aircraft took on a fighter-bomber role, flying sorties across the channel twice a day and participating in the bombing of bridges, roads, railways and the like.

Apart from the Southern Rhodesian airmen serving with the RAF in Britain, the colony was sparsely represented in the Normandy landings of 6 June 1944 ("D-Day"). Several men from the colony served aboard cruisers and destroyers that engaged the German shore batteries. A small number of Southern Rhodesians parachuted into Normandy with the 6th Airborne Division during Operation Tonga, and some took part in the amphibious landings. No. 266 Squadron was part of the Allied force that flew over the beaches during the first landings, supporting the infantry. Later that day it took part in sorties to assist the paratroopers holding the bridgeheads north of Caen.

No. 266 Squadron, which remained 95% Rhodesian at the start of 1945, thereafter provided air support to the advancing Allied armies through France, the Low Countries and finally Germany. Through most of the European winter months it was based in Antwerp. In late March 1945 the Rhodesian fighters formed part of the force tasked with protecting the descending Allied paratroopers during Field-Marshal Montgomery's crossing of the Rhine. During April the squadron operated over Hanover and the northern Netherlands. No. 44 Squadron, meanwhile, embarked on bombing raids on targets as far away as Gdynia and Königsberg in East Prussia, as well as towns and cities closer to Berlin such as Dresden, Emden and Leipzig. Its last bombing operation was a raid on the Berghof, Hitler's residence, near Berchtesgaden in Bavaria on 25 April 1945. After Germany surrendered on 7 May, ending the war in Europe, No. 44 Squadron was one of many units selected to evacuate British prisoners of war home from the continent.

Burma
Southern Rhodesia's main contribution to the Burma Campaign in terms of manpower was made by the Rhodesian African Rifles (RAR), a regiment of black troops led by white officers that joined the front at the end of 1944. The colony also made a significant contribution to the Commonwealth forces' command element in Burma, providing white officers and NCOs to the 81st (West Africa), 82nd (West Africa) and 11th (East Africa) Divisions, made up of units from Nigeria, the Gold Coast, the Gambia, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia and the Congo. Almost every African battalion in Burma had white Rhodesian officers and NCOs attached; some were over 70% Rhodesian-led.

Modelled on the Rhodesia Native Regiment of World War I, the RAR was formed in May 1940 under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel F J Wane, who the black soldiers nicknamed msoro-we-gomo ("top of the mountain"). Most volunteers for the regiment came from Mashonaland, much to the surprise of the white recruiters, who had expected Matabeleland, with stronger martial traditions, to provide more men. Originally comprising one battalion, the RAR expanded to two battalions in late 1943 to accommodate a rush of new recruits following the news that the 1st Battalion was being deployed overseas. Steps to organise two further battalions of black Southern Rhodesians were abandoned because of the conviction of the colony's overall military commander, Brigadier E R Day, that it was important "to preserve a fair balance" between black and white troops, and that raising the men would take too long in any case. 1RAR trained in Kenya from December 1943 to September 1944, when it transferred to Ceylon and became part of the 22nd (East Africa) Infantry Brigade alongside the 1st KAR and the 3rd Northern Rhodesia Regiment. In December 1944, after three months' training for jungle warfare, 1RAR and the other two components of the brigade joined the Burma Campaign at Chittagong under the command of the 15th Indian Corps. The brigade spent about three months supporting the 25th Indian Division in north-western Burma, advancing through the Mayu peninsula during January 1945 and taking part in the latter stages of the Battle of Ramree Island, landing on the island on 14 February. 1RAR fortified positions at Myinbin, Kyaukkale and Mayin but did not contact Japanese forces.

A widespread belief developed among Japanese troops in Burma that the British Army's African soldiers were cannibals, partly because of deliberate disinformation spread by the black troops themselves as they travelled around the country. While entirely unfounded, the notion "that we Africans eat people", as one RAR soldier put it, had a fearsome psychological effect; men of 1RAR reported Japanese soldiers picking up their comrades' bodies in the midst of battle and running away.

In March 1945 the 22nd Brigade was ordered south to Dalaba where it became part of the 82nd (West Africa) Division, which had been tasked with clearing the Taungup area of Japanese troops. The 22nd Brigade was deployed as a flank guard, sweeping down the Tanlwe Chaung before hooking around to the Taungup Chaung and ultimately the road to Prome; this move was intended to cut Japanese units to the north off from the Irrawaddy Delta to the south, where most of the key battles were being fought. 1RAR patrolled the area during March and April 1945 and was involved in several contacts. On 20 April it assembled at a point overlooking Tanlwe Chaung, where it was shelled by Japanese artillery and mortars dug in atop two high features to the south. On the morning of 26 April, after a few days of patrols, 1RAR took the lead in what became the Battle of Tanlwe Chaung; after about half an hour of bombing, strafing and artillery bombardment of the Japanese positions, elements of A and D Companies, 1RAR charged up the slopes and routed much of the Japanese garrison before taking both hills. Seven RAR men were killed in the action and 22 were wounded, mostly from D Company; an officer was also injured. An officer of the RAR recalled the battles of April 1945 around Taungup and Tanlwe Chaung as extremely intense:"The way our fellows charged their way along these paths, yelling, makes a lump come into my throat when I think of it even now. It was sheer suicide for the leading group and the whole force faced machine guns up the sides of the slopes above them, on the sides of the features behind them, and even up the trees above them, with snipers behind who let them pass before opening fire. For sheer cold-blooded bravery, I can't believe it has ever been beaten in any other theatre of war; and this went on for three weeks solid." 1RAR spent most of May 1945 building quarters and training before marching the 110 km to Prome in late June; from here they went another 25 km by truck to Gyobingauk. The monsoon conditions took a dreadful toll on operations, making logistics particularly difficult and slow—men found themselves either found themselves knee-deep in mud or slipping around on the surface. From early July 1945 1RAR patrolled around Gyobingauk, repeatedly engaging parties of Japanese and forcing them into the hills. Even after the Japanese commanders in Burma surrendered unconditionally, the Allied troops had to continue patrolling to handle Japanese stragglers who either did know of this or did not believe it. After the Japanese forces in South-East Asia formally surrendered at Singapore on 12 September 1945, active Allied operations in the region were greatly diminished. 1RAR spent about half a year guarding Japanese prisoners in Burma before leaving for home in March 1946. They arrived back in Salisbury on 10 May.

Other Frontiers
In addition to the main deployments, Southern Rhodesian servicemen served in other theatres of the war. Rhodesian sailors in the Royal, South African and Merchant Navies crewed ships in many parts of the world, including the Indian Ocean, the Arctic and the Pacific. No. 237 (Rhodesia) Squadron operated in Iran and Iraq in 1942–43, guarding oil wells and pipelines and supporting the British Tenth Army.

Closer to home, Southern Rhodesian military surveyors contributed to the preliminary planning work for the Allied invasion of Madagascar in May 1942, and landed at Diego Suarez with the invading forces. They remained there long after the Vichy French garrison agreed to an armistice at Ambalavao on 6 November 1942—the last Rhodesian left the island in October 1943.

End of War
Along with most of the Commonwealth and Allied nations, Southern Rhodesia sent a delegation of soldiers, airmen and seamen to London to take part in the grand Victory Parade of 8 June 1946. The colony's contingent, led by Colonel R E B Long, marched after South Africa and before Newfoundland. The Southern Rhodesian colour guard comprised a white officer and two black sergeants of the Rhodesian African Rifles. During the royal visit to Southern Rhodesia in April 1947, King George VI accorded the prefix "Royal" to the Rhodesia Regiment in recognition of its contributions to the two World Wars, and agreed to be its Colonel-in-Chief.

Statistics
Southern Rhodesia had contributed more manpower to the Allied cause in World War II, proportional to white population, than any other British dominion or colony, and more than the UK itself. According to figures compiled by MacDonald for his War History of Southern Rhodesia, 26,121 Southern Rhodesians served in the armed forces during the conflict, of whom 2,758 were commissioned officers. Broken down by race and gender, there were 15,153 black men, 9,187 white men, 1,510 white women and 271 coloured and Indian men. Of the 8,390 who served outside the territory, 1,505 were black men, 6,520 were white men, 137 were white women and 228 were coloured or Indian men.

According to official figures, 33,145 black Southern Rhodesians were conscripted for labour between 1943 and 1945; Vickery estimates that between 15,000 and 60,000 more may have worked on the aerodromes. According to Ashley Jackson's work The British Empire and the Second World War, the Rhodesian Air Training Group instructed 8,235 Allied pilots, navigators, gunners, ground crew and others—about 5% of overall EATS output.

A total of 2,409 Southern Rhodesians (977 officers and 1,432 other ranks) served in the RAF during the war, 373 (86 officers and 287 ratings) joined the Royal Navy, and 13 officers and 36 ratings from Southern Rhodesia mustered into the South African Navy. The vast majority of the rest served in either the Southern Rhodesian territorial forces or the British or South African Army. The colony's men and women received 698 decorations during the war; whites received 689 while black troops won nine. No coloured or Indian serviceman was decorated. Army officers won 269 decorations while the other ranks received 158; the air force officers and other ranks respectively won 184 and 72 decorations. All eight decorated Southern Rhodesian naval personnel were officers. Of the seven decorated women, all but one held commissioned rank. Two hundred and fifty-three Southern Rhodesians were mentioned in despatches during the war.

MacDonald records 916 Southern Rhodesian fatalities from enemy action during World War II—498 airmen, 407 ground troops, eight seamen and three female personnel—and 483 wounded, of whom 434 were soldiers, 47 were airmen and two were sailors.


text:
Talk:Lentis/Climate Change Denial

I'll be focusing my edits primarily on the introduction and history sections as we discussed. I'm building the new history section around the content that was already there; it was mostly factual content before so I'm trying to add a level of analysis (+ supporting facts). Additionally, since I think we're limiting the scope of this topic to the United States, I plan on specifying that in the introduction section. **Edit: I moved the section on the GCC to the lobbying groups section for better flow. -Burtner

I will be adding a section about the impacts of climate denial and intergenerational justice. This section will focus on the varying opinions of climate change across different age groups and the effects this has on intergenerational justice. -Satterthwaite

I will add a section discussion the intersection of political science and climate change denial. This section will examine how political ideologies have perpetuated climate change denial and how climate change denial played a role in the 2020 presidential election. -Abeysekera

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Lentis/Climate Change Denial


text:
Child Psychology and Digital Technology

"Child Psychology and Digital Technology"
In 2012, Sherry Turkle, an MIT sociologist, presented a TED talk where she emphasized the psychological impact that digital screens are having on us. According to Turkle, these devices which have become a part of our daily lives “do not only change what we do, they change who we are” (italic mine). Many experts agree that digital technology is causing children and adolescents psychological health problems since children are visually connected to their devices for extended hours on a typical day. Digital technology is creating relationship problems for parents, children, and society because we are not developing social interactions which is a fundamental value in our lives. A study conducted by Pew Research Center Internet and Technology found that many parents are worried about digital screens being harmful to their children. Society and especially parents need to learn more about digital technology before it negatively affects children and adolescent's core values.

“ What are the disadvantages of digital technology for children, and how can parents prevent their children from overusing cell phones? ”
Staying connected on a digital screen for a long time is harming children’s psychological development since children are not engaging in physical activities and communicating with other people. In the article “ Parenting Children in the Age of Screens, ” researchers report that seven out of ten parents know that smartphones can damage children’s capability to communicate with others. Sixty-eight percent of parents also believe that digital screens do not let children have healthy relationships or friendships which means that children probably spend more hours on digital screens than interacting with their peers; this decreases children’s personal life experiences. Fifty-four percent of parents perceive that young children who spend time on the digital screen will not succeed in school because they prefer to stay on their devices for long hours than pick up a book to study or do schoolwork. Furthermore, researchers said that parents are equally divided when they talk about how smartphones are deteriorating children's ability to find hobbies, which is the main tool to create good leadership skills as a young adult. Many parents are aware of the psychological problems digital screens can cause, especially in children under the age of twelve. Parents should aim to create healthy experiences with their children such as visiting museums, parks, or restaurants. These unique experiences between parents and children will help children to appreciate those important moments and stay away from screens. Digital technology is slowly being integrated into our children’s lives which is changing their habits and isolating them from the outside world.

“How are digital screens affecting quality time?”
Staying connected as a family has become challenging since devices are taking away personal interactions, especially between parents and children. For example, researchers report that sixty-eight percent of parents admitted that their phones distract them when they are spending quality time with their children. Researchers also discovered a positive correlation between the level of education and distractibility. Parents with higher education are more likely to be distracted by their mobile devices while spending time with their kids compared to parents with some college and high school education (Auxier et al. 55). Digital screens are dominating quality time because both children and parents have their eyes on the digital screens. Many think parents need to become more aware of not just how this screen time affects their children, but of what it does to them and their relationship with their children. If parents put their phones away while they are having conversations with their children, it will show their kids that they are involved in their lives.

“What is the appropriate amount of time children should use their devices?”
Selecting a specific amount of time for children to be on their devices is difficult for many parents because children have phones in their pockets all the time. In the article “Is Digital Addiction a Real Threat for Kids?,” Dr. Christakis, who administers the Center for Child Health, Behaviors, and Development at the University of Washington, questions how parents of intermediate schoolers could enforce digital time limits since children check their digital screen many times in a regular day and kids use smartphones to stay connected with friends, play games, and do schoolwork. He thinks parents cannot control their children's phone usage because kids own phones and use it all the time. Dr. Christakis also advises programmers and people who do studies about the impact of digital technology on children and he suggests creating measures or guidelines in which children can put down their phones and find an activity that increases their development. Parents should figure out how much time is appropriate for their children and try to find good ways to enjoy their time together without phones. There are many things that parents can do with their children without a digital screen, they just need to ask their children and organize together to meet their positive goals.

“Why do parents let their children stay on their devices for long hours?”
Parents provide digital devices to their children because they think videos are educational and entertaining. However, these videos are not appropriate for young children because they contain violence and aggressive language. In 2018, James Bridle, an artist and publisher, described a simple video made by a vlogger called “Surprise Egg video,” in which a man takes seven minutes to open a lovely chocolate egg to show a tiny toy. This unimportant video has 8 billion viewers, which surprisingly are young children. Vloggers are people who profit from creating random videos that target young children because parents use smartphones as a replacement for babysitters. He states that when kids are connected to the screen for long hours, it makes it difficult for parents to take digital screens away from them since kids become irritable and misbehave. Bridle explains that because algorithms choose what videos children watch, they are at risk of being exposed to inappropriate and violent videos. As a result, children become afraid of certain places or of the program that they love. He states that even though a digital screen keeps us connected with calls, texts, and emails, these digital screens are making children and us addicted. Parents allow children to use smartphones for long hours because they believe that they will benefit from watching videos. However, when children watch inappropriate videos it can negatively impact their behavior.

“What should parents know before they provide devices to their children?”
Searching for information about digital devices is something that parents should do before they provide a digital screen to their children. In the book The Cyber Effects which investigates the relationship between technology and human behavior, Dr. Mary Aiken, a cyberpsychologist explains that parents who give digital screens to their children think their kids need to be in constant learning otherwise children become bored. What parents do not understand is that when their children are looking at smartphones instead of communicating with their parents they are gradually decreasing their language development. Some parents realize that the more time their children spend on their devices, the more their language skills are not improving due to a lack of interaction with peers and society. Moreover, Aiken points out that parents need to know that digital devices could carry the risk of radiation exposure which could harm children more than adults (102). I agree with Aiken about decreasing language skills in small children. For instance, my sister in law who works in a learning center told me a story about a parent who registered her daughter to that learning center. This mother told the class team and teacher that her daughter knows a lot of vocabulary because she has been watching videos on Youtube. When this child came to the classroom the little girl did not follow rules and she did not understand basic vocabulary. Parents need to understand that videos on digital screens are not the same as the academic curriculum where children learn manners and appropriate learning skills.

“What actions should parents take to reduce aggressive behavior caused by violent video games?”
Managing children’s behavior is challenging for many parents, especially when their children play violent video games. The article, “Why and How to Include Parents in the Treatment of Adolescents Presenting Internet Gaming Disorder?” states that if parents and adolescents interrupt their intercommunication at some point in their lives, it can affect adolescents’ emotional firmness and lead to a dysfunctional gap in the relationship with their parents. The researchers emphasize that it is fundamental for parents and adolescents to have excellent relationships because it can help adolescents to practice and understand their basic knowledge and skills. Also recognizing and expressing their feelings is something that parents need to explain to their teenagers when they do not win on video games. Researchers also emphasize Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT) sessions that focus on “reducing the amount of video game time” and “guides, coaches and shapes more positive and constructive family interchange during family sessions.” This type of therapy will help children to create solid ideas and develop greater control of video games. Having parents engage in adolescent lives will help adolescents feel confident when they lose a game. Lastly, if parents feel overwhelmed with their child’s aggressive behavior after they play video games, they should find outside sources, like emotional therapy, which can help both parents and children.

“What actions should programmers and authorities take to minimize the negative impact of digital screens on young children and teens?”
Politicians and social media entrepreneurs are aware of how digital devices are affecting young children and adolescents. The Cyber Effect, by Mary Aiken, says that powerful men like Jeff Bezos who is the CEO and President of Amazon are supporting early childhood education by encouraging parents to buy books. Aiken supports Bezos’ initiative because reading a book to a child is not just narrating the story but also feeling a close connection with the child. Besides, she recommends good resources like Beyond the Screen which provides “ news, articles, commentaries, and up-to-date advice and recommendations by experts for parents.” Finally, Aiken explains that Taiwan has implemented admirable legislation to prohibit devices for children under two-years-old, control devices for children under eighteen, and make parents responsible for any negative effects that technology has on their child. I like the idea that Bezos is supporting early education programs because children who spend reading time with their parents will learn new vocabulary and be better prepared for school. As a parent, when my children were little I used to take them to a local library where they had programs like reading time and extra activities for small children and their families. I also took my children to The Home Depot where they used to have programs for children to build small trucks, houses, and furniture. I believe if parents spend time finding appropriate sources for their children, they will find many of them which sometimes have convenient hours since some parents work during the day so they can schedule on weekends.

title: Child Psychology and Digital Technology


text:
Lentis/The 2020 Pandemic Response in Italy

Introduction
Italy was among the first countries to be affected by COVID-19 and responsible for accelerating the spread of the disease throughout Europe and other Western countries. When the outbreak began in February 2020, the Coronavirus had not yet exploded across the globe. Italy faced the novel threat alone, without a clear strategy to defeat the virus. Despite efforts, the death toll in Italy has risen to almost 60,000. As Italy combats a resurgence in coronavirus cases, this chapter investigates the initial responses from the Italian government and healthcare officials, as well as social and cultural factors that transformed Italy into Europe’s epicenter.

Italian Government's Mismanagement
The Italian government’s mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic originates from its response to the H1N1 outbreak in 2009. Italians criticize the government for overreacting and purchasing millions of later unused vaccines, causing distrust and skepticism of the Italian government. Therefore during the early stages of the COVID-19 outbreak, Italians were reluctant to heed warnings and restrictions, citing Italy’s previous mishandling of viral outbreaks. Skepticism grew as several prominent Italian politicians were seen shaking hands at a public event in Milan, only weeks before Italy’s lockdown. Inconsistent guidelines and unclear policy further increased widespread distrust among Italians, accelerating the transmission of the virus. On February 23, a first Decree Law was introduced and identified 12 municipalities in northern Italy as ‘red zones,’ or hotspots of the outbreak. However, on February 26, Rome’s scientific committee said there was no evidence indicating the need for a lockdown, with the Mayor of a north Italian town publicly stating, “Don’t worry. There is no redzone foreseen”. This statement was later proven false, and on March 9, the Italian government placed the entire country under one protection zone. Gradual lockdowns failed to contain the virus, as the severity in Italy worsened as more cities and towns closed. Moreover, Italians disregarded lockdowns in their home municipalities by traveling to southern regions that remained opened. Despite the announcement of a final decree on March 22 prohibiting movement of citizens between municipalities, it was too late to control the already exploding outbreak.

Italian Health Care System’s Response:
Beyond the Italian government mishandling the initial response, the healthcare system also proved unprepared. Servizio Sanitario Nazionale (SSN) is a regionally-based national health service. Although universal coverage is provided to citizens largely free of charge, the quality of healthcare provided varies depending on the region. Northern Italy is known for its economic prosperity and higher quality of healthcare compared to its southern counterpart. However, almost immediately, the virus appeared to affect northern regions disproportionately, particularly in Lombardy and Veneto where the outbreaks began. The influx of patients requiring intensive care quickly oversaturated northern hospitals, and the shortage of hospital beds, ventilators, and healthcare professionals became a serious threat. Furthermore, adequate personal protection equipment was not properly distributed to health workers. Before the end of March, healthcare workers accounted for 9% of the total cases, and by May 4, 154 doctors had died from COVID-19 infection. On the local level, efforts were made to contain the virus and care for the increasing number of sick patients: new healthcare workers with specialized training were hired, new hospitals were built, and old hospitals were converted into COVID-19 centers with the help of thousands of volunteers. However, the lack of a centralized response from the national government caused each area to act independently, and therefore each had a different outcome. For example, Lombardy and Veneto had significantly different infection and mortality rates despite similar economic and social determinants. Lombardy’s hospital-centered approach proved to be lacking compared to Veneto’s community-based approach, prioritizing extensive contact tracing and rapid testing. By April 1, the mortality rates were 7.5 times higher in Lombardy than in Veneto. Veneto took specific actions that may have contributed to this outcome: independently producing chemical reagents needed to process swabs, adopting a bio-surveillance system allowing the integration of data from different sources, and proactively tracing potentially infected community members. A key factor in Italy’s national response was the Ministry of Health’s introduction of Special Continuity Assistance Units (SPCU). These healthcare workers offer quick, at-home specialized treatment for patients with no severe symptoms, helping to prevent infected patients from going to the hospital when it is too late to recover. The integration of these units with community nurses and social workers helped build confidence and connected communities, as a joint effort to improve health and reduce inequalities.

Italian Culture & the COVID-19 Response
Italy has one of the world’s oldest populations, with 23% of the population 65 or older. The higher mortality rate among the elderly population along with the Italian culture’s reverence for the elderly created complications while trying to slow the spread of COVID among the elderly. Flamboyant Italian culture, such as kisses on the cheek when greeting, caused an initial disregard for social distancing and quarantine measures, further accelerating the spread of COVID. Lastly, Italy’s multigenerational household made it extremely difficult for infected citizens to isolate themselves from the older, at-risk members of their family. Italians eventually made purposeful cultural changes to protect their elderly population, but only after the first wave of cases devastated the country.

Conclusion: Lessons from Italy
The coronavirus pandemic is the most challenging health crisis in 100 years. Italy’s efforts serve as a case study for combatting various sociotechnical emergencies, not only public health crises. Disasters intensified by climate change such as hurricanes, droughts, and forest fires all require similar strategies as viral outbreaks. Successful responses to unexpected disasters vary in approach, but the most important factor to prevent and reduce the impact of catastrophes is preparation. The Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB), co-created by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Bank, released their annual report in 2019, warning of “a rapidly spreading pandemic due to a lethal respiratory pathogen” which could kill millions and devastate the world’s economy. Despite similar pleas to strengthen global healthcare systems in previous reports, few countries took the threat seriously, resulting in the Coronavirus pandemic experts warned was imminent. From 2014 to 2018, changes in Italian healthcare policy decreased the number of hospital beds and hospitals despite the increasing use of hospital services. By February 2020, half of the hospital beds in northern Italy were designated for intubated patients, stretching the resources of an already depleted healthcare system. Although WHO applauded Italian health officials for their initial efforts, lack of preparation doomed Italy from the start. The Italian government hesitated to enforce lockdowns after it was clear the pathogen had not been successfully contained, citing financial concerns and mass panic. Ineffective distribution of protective equipment to doctors and nurses, under-testing the population, and fear of repeating the mistakes of the H1N1 outbreak highlight Italy’s failure to prepare for and contain the disease. The 2019 Global Climate Report from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) urged countries to drastically reduce CO2 emissions under the threat of “unprecedented floods and droughts” risking millions of lives and costing trillions of dollars. Unlike pandemic warnings, many countries have taken important steps to reduce carbon emissions and seek alternative energy solutions, such as Chile’s new climate initiative. Although the World should try everything to prevent rising temperatures from reaching irreversible levels, it should expect the worst. World leaders need to treat threats of unparalleled natural disasters due to climate changes as they should have treated threats of a pandemic, not as possible but as inevitable. We recommend future researchers investigate initial responses from other countries during Italy’s outbreak to identify successful global cooperation strategies that can be broadly applied to various public safety emergencies.


text:
Free Knowledge Culture Calendar/March 24

Today in 2004 the – unsuccessfully appealed – court decision was made that forced Microsoft to give competitors such as the Samba project access to documentation of the “secret” workgroup server protocols of Windows. Following a complaint by Sun Microsystems the European Commission had brought an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. An appeal failed on September 17, 2007. Microsoft had to pay an unprecedented fine of 497 million and another 280 million in 2007 for abuse of its quasi-monopoly. The Samba team finally gained access on December 20, 2007, albeit under a non-disclosure agreement, through the Protocol Freedom Information Foundation (PFIF), a non-profit organization established by the Software Freedom Law Center.


text:
Lentis/The 2020 Western Wildfire Season in the U.S.

= Introduction =

The state of California has the largest population in our nation, with over 40 million citizens. California also is known for its beautiful forests, which cover over 30% of the state’s land. With the natural beauty of these forests comes the natural disaster of forest fires, which have been increasingly impacting the lives of Californians over the past few years. We are setting out to analyze the nature and impact of these fires through the perspectives of many different participant groups involved.

= Overview =

California WUI Expansion
As the state with the largest population, California has inherently seen significant population growth in the past few decades. California’s early population growth came from western states such as Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio; this was followed by a shift to international immigration from countries like Mexico, China, Taiwan, and the Philippines. However, in recent years, California’s population growth has slowed due to the fact that the most promising land has become overpopulated.

As a result, California forests have come to be bordered by residential developments: these borders are known as the Wild-Urban Interface (WUI). The WUI is now the fastest growing land-use type in California, with over 25% of California’s population currently living on these borders

Wildfire Activity in California
In parallel with this shift towards WUI living has come unprecedented wildfire activity in california. 6 of the top 20 most devastating wildfires in California history occurred in the year 2020 alone. In 2020, over 4.2 million acres have been burned, resulting in 31 fatalities. Other than the year 2019, which was an anomaly in terms of rainfall, California has seen steady growth in the number of acres burned each year by wildfires for the past several decades. This increase in fire activity along with the WUI shift pushes us to ask: “what is going on here?”

Causes
This past August was the hottest in state history. Record-breaking temperatures, drought, and 14,000 lightning strikes in three days ignited the fires and spread them quickly. Also, rainfall was 50% of normal this year, and nighttime temperatures were six degrees warmer than normal. These contributors are important because they are usually factors that help firefighters fight fires. Furthermore, inmate firefighting crews were smaller than usual after the state granted many inmates early release to mitigate the spread of coronavirus in crowded facilities.

Finally, wildfire management policy has emphasized suppression over prevention. From 1910 to 1970, wildfire policy in California dictated suppressing fires as quickly as possible. Flammable material such as dead trees and other foliage builds up until eventually, the inevitable fire is too large to control.

Effects
Effects The vast fires have created toxic air, blackouts, and heatwaves for millions of residents. Some effects can be long-term, such as breathing in the toxic air damaging lungs, and damaged drinking water systems. With the 4.2 million acres burned, there were 10,488 structures damaged as of Nov. 19. This destruction left many without homes and many others to evacuate their homes during the time of danger. . Wildlife, such as deer and wild cats, are also affected as many have their natural habitats destroyed, and many pets got lost in the fires.

Wildfires around the World in 2020
This year, the Arctic and Siberian region, Indonesia, Brazil, Argentina, and Australia have also experienced their worst wildfires in decades. In each case, the causes can be different, but hotter and drier seasons are consistent throughout all of them.

= Participant Impact & Action =

California Residents
Recent research finds that over 12 million Americans who live in fire-prone areas would be unable to prepare for or recover from a wildfire: their homes and livelihoods are at risk. Most of them are located in California, which has more than 2 million households in “high or extreme” risk of wildfire damage. It should also be noted that traditionally underserved communities are particularly vulnerable in this context. Studies show that lower-income households and short-term residents --including renters or seasonal occupants, are less likely to invest in fire mitigation activities on properties.

There have been some groups of citizens who have come together to support communities at risk of wildfires. One group called “Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire” works to help those living in the WUI. They work as educated representatives for the public to ensure safe land use planning, hazard assessment, and capacity building in WUI and other at-risk communities.

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has also established a group called Firewise USA. Firewise USA is a national organization that has the goal of empowering and educating individuals and communities to decrease wildfire risk. They help individuals prepare and protect homes from wildfire risk. In addition, they educate people on what to expect from their townships and local representatives in the context of fire safety.

Politicians & Government Groups
Politicians and government systems are inherent participants in this case, as it involves the use and interaction between public and private lands and concerns the well-being of citizens. Their goals could be generalized as gaining the support of the public, as well as protecting them. These groups are not only tasked with fighting fires on the frontlines but also working to solve problems on a larger scale.

Political Responses
There are disagreements about the wildfires’ causes, and they often reflect partisan ideology in America. President Donald Trump blamed the state of California’s poor forest management for the disaster while avoiding the cause of climate change, claiming that things will “just get cooler” if we “just watch”. President-Elect Joe Biden immediately connected the wildfires to climate change, an issue his voter base cares deeply about.

Governor Gavin Newsom committed California to more aggressive carbon reduction targets, tasking his Environmental Protection Secretary and Natural resources Secretary to accelerate California’s climate change agenda across the board. Along with reductions in carbon, Governor Newsom and the US Forest Service chief signed a memorandum of understanding of the need to intentionally burn more forest in order to keep fires under control. However, this is not real legislation, and without drastic change, additional small-scale preventative burns will be only a drop in the ocean of what is necessary to prevent another mega-fire season.

Government Agencies
In 2008, the state set new fire-resistance requirement codes for all new homes or buildings in California. Then, in March 2018, Congress passed a “Wildfire Funding Fix” which should give government agencies the funds necessary to accelerate their work and prioritize forest restoration efforts on an as-needed basis.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL Fire) is a fire department run by the California Natural Resources Agency. They are tasked with an array of responsibilities including fighting fires on the front lines as well as preventing wildfires. CAL Fire has implemented the “California Forest Stewardship Program” which encourages good stewardship of California’s private forestland. They consult with land managers and public health agencies to develop smoke management plans and take necessary precautions to best protect nearby communities. CAL Fire is also responsible for, however, an increasingly large budget for fire suppression. They have been criticized for technology and not using it to its greatest effect, such as calling Boeing 747s to drop retardant, which only 30 percent of even falls within 2,000 yards of a neighborhood. Instead, the money could be used to set up more preventative burns to reduce flammable stockpile in the forests.

= Conclusion =

The 2020 Western Wildfire Season was the perfect storm of climate change, WUI encroachment, and a century of over-aggressive fire suppression that has led to the largest fire season ever recorded. New fire-resistance codes, more ambitious carbon reduction goals, sustainable population growth paired with careful urban planning, and massive expansion of preventative burns have all been hailed as part of the solution to enduring growing fire pains in the Western United States. This chapter is a model example of how solutionism (an overaggressive fire policy supported by increasing technological prowess) may cause unintended harms. It is also an example of the trade off between population expansion and environment protection. Further work must be made to extend the examination beyond the United States, and it may be interesting to look at how private firefighters are being used.

=References=


text:
Talk:Lentis/The 2020 Western Wildfire Season in the U.S.

Hi Professor Norton, we wrote the majority of this on a google doc, and so edits might be a little wonky. Whapplez is Tim Han by the way.


text:
Lentis/Antimaskers in the U.S. during the 2020 Pandemic

Antimaskers
During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, world health experts have urged citizens around the globe to wear face masks to prevent and slow the spread of the disease. While there has been little governmental enforcement of rules requiring a mask, many businesses and organizations have required their patrons to wear one. These requirements have inadvertently led to the resistance of some to follow the rules. People who refuse to wear such face coverings have been labeled as "antimaskers". The was a similar movement protesting the public mandate of wearing face coverings during the 1918 Influenza Pandemic. Societal reactance to enforced rules/guidelines is not novel to the COVID-19 pandemic and many parallels can be drawn from resistance groups of the past and present.

Organization
While there does not exist an overarching organization for the antimask movement, individuals have formed groups to voice their grievances. Online forums and social media (such as Facebook Groups) have allowed like-minded people to share information, organize protests, and recruit others to strengthen the movement. Users state a variety of reasons to not wear a mask, but many have formed a general consensus that they are useless and hinder the ability to breathe properly. Many protestors also voice their concerns over personal liberties and freedoms: "It’s a violation of my freedom, I think, and then also I just don’t think they work" (Stewart, 2020). Despite growing evidence of the effectiveness of masks and advice of experts, the number of antimask Facebook groups continues to expand.

Underlying Problem
The views and opinions of individuals within the movement can be classified in two main tenants: 1. A distrust in the scientific community and governmental entities, and 2. The protection of personal liberties over the "good of the many." Similar to the flat Earth and anti-vaxxer groups, antimaskers see themselves as the resistance to an oppressive establishment. In addition, many protestors cite the US Constitution as the basis for their beliefs, "No states are allowed to make laws that take our freedoms and liberties away" (Stewart, 2020). Inadequate and inconsistent enforcement of mandates by law enforcement also plays a role. When combined together with a group mentality, individuals fight for what they believe with confidence and a solid foundation, accelerating new membership.

Gender
Gender has been shown to have a strong influence on mask-wearing preference. In a study of over 2,500 people across the United States, Capraro and Barcelo found that in both mandatory and non-mandatory situations, men scored lower when they were asked to rate their intentions to wear a face mask. Similarly, men also experienced more negative emotions when wearing a face mask in comparison to women. This implies that men and women have different social values that influence their opinions on mask wearing, which may be attributed to upbringing based on gender, social psychology, and various other factors.

President Trump and Political Affiliation
Throughout the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, President Trump has had a large influence in how the pandemic has been handled. On occasion, he has been shown to be dismissive of the pandemic, has not actively acknowledged that masks help contain the spread of the virus, and was not seen wearing a mask in public until July 11, 2020, nearly 4 months after COVID-19 was classified as a pandemic by the. Trump refusing to wear a mask has turned mask-wearing into a heavily politicized issue. An overwhelming majority of antimaskers politically identify as Republican and look to President Trump as an example. Many antimaskers see mask-wearing is a symbol of both political beliefs and individual values, particularly the right to bodily autonomy.

Distrust of Experts
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, leading experts in the United States have given contradictory information regarding the effectiveness of masks. On February 29, 2020, the US Surgeon General tweeted "Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS." More recently, Dr. Scott W. Atlas, a neuroradiologist and medical advisor to Trump, tweeted "Masks work? NO." This tweet was later flagged by Twitter for misinformation. , one of the most trusted medical experts in America and a lead member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, stated in a video on March 8, 2020, “there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.” He has since gone back on this statement multiple times, and reassured Americans that masks are effective at containing the virus.

The CDC did not update guidelines to include wearing masks until April 3, 2020. The WHO did not update their guidelines until June 5, 2020, despite COVID-19 being declared a pandemic back in March 2020.

Between public health professionals telling them that masks do not work, delayed evidence that they do, and general misinformation, antimaskers have grown to become distrustful of expert advice. However, antimaskers distrust of experts appears to be an extension of the distrust developed in the 1800’s when vaccines were first administered. This public confusion and concern over vaccines has persisted, and is known to us today as the movement. The antimaskers and the Anti-vaxxer movement both distrust experts and value bodily autonomy. As the COVID-19 vaccine is developed, there is sure to be more controversy regarding the vaccine, and this distrust will only become more apparent.

Office of War Information and Rosie the Riveter
The United States Office of War Information existed during World War II to provide information to civilians on the home front about the war. WWII was a total war which meant it required the efforts of a majority of the citizens in the country. Because men traditionally worked factory jobs there was a labor shortage for a lot of blue collar work as many of the able bodied men were at war. The OWI decided to draw up propaganda posters to normalize and promote women working these roles.

This is an example of the United States using propaganda and messaging to challenge societal norms to benefit the whole country. Women took an important role in the workforce during WWII and increased their proportion in the workforce significantly. Rosie the Riveter is an allegorical cultural icon that originated during World War II, and is still used and referenced as a symbol of feminism and female self-determination. One can see there was missed opportunity to leverage Americans' patriotism to challenge the notion of mask wearing as a restriction of personal liberty. The United States Government could have taken a similar approach, and attempted to create an allegorical cultural icon for promoting public health, who wears a mask to protect their fellow Americans. There would be great benefit to a long lasting American icon who promotes collective health.

Cool Biz
Another example of government taking initiative to shift cultural norms for the betterment of society is Cool Biz. It is an ongoing Japanese government initiative to promote cooler business dress during summer months to save energy normally used for air conditioning. The campaign consists of fashion shows, informational posters, and early adoption by government officials. Prior to the the Cool Biz campaigns beginning in 2005, it was customary for Japanese salarymen to wear a full suit and tie regardless of the weather. Cool biz was a major cultural change, and saw great success. Japan saw a 460 thousand-ton reduction in CO2 emissions in 2005 and 1.14 million-ton reduction in 2006. Adoption of Cool Biz by political leaders, including former prime minister Junichiro Koizumi, helped popularize the movement.

One can easily see strategies in Cool Biz that can be directly applied to fighting anti-mask sentiment in the United States since both involve cultural shifts in fashion for social good. It's reasonable to assume fashion shows and adoption by government officials could have encouraged abandonment of anti mask sentiment.

Trump's Public Appearances Wearing a Mask
The percentage of Americans who are not wearing masks has gone down significantly since the start of the COVID-19 Pandemic. A Pew Research Center study surveyed people's mask wearing habits in June and August 2020. The demographic with the highest proportional increase in mask wearing was "Right Leaning / Republican," from 53 to 76 percent. One should note that the first time Trump was seen in public wearing a mask was in July 2020, right between the two survey dates.

One can’t attribute increased mask wearing only to Trump’s appearance wearing a mask and Trump still isn’t the most encouraging of mask adoption. It would be reasonable, however, to say there is value in leaders helping normalize societal change by being public adopters of the change, similar to Koizumi's adoption of Cool Biz.

Conclusion and Further Research
If the United States government's aim during the pandemic is to get it under control as soon as possible, it should prioritize transparent and constant communication, and at least some consistency in messaging across different parts of the bureaucracy. Additional reasons for antimask sentiments also include the lack of experience with pandemics, particularly in comparison to Asian countries who experienced the outbreak in 2003, severe medical reasons that prohibit them from wearing masks, and mask unavailability in the early days of the pandemic. With vaccines for COVID-19 on the horizon, it would be interesting to explore anti-vaccination sentiment among anti-maskers.


text:
Talk:Lentis/Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, and the Development of Environmental Values, 1950-1970

Hi Professor Norton. We elected to communicate outside of the discussion page through both a google document and direct group message. This seemed to be the easiest way work with each other on the chapter, and quickly respond to questions any of us might have. Dylanjenik (discuss • contribs) 03:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


text:
User:HumbleBeauty/Proof of monism peer review

This manuscript has been peer reviewed by Christopher Michael Langan (CTMU), and Jonathan Emerson (the G proof), and by numerous atheists and agnostics across the internet; such as on myspace religion and philosophy forum, facebook groups, and on paltalk.

sole Author: Mars Sterling Turner

 * It is more about an item including a full introduction to the topic, citations to sources, well-defined terms, discussion, logical consistency. ...-Thomas Shafee, editor in chief of wikiversity science journal
 * "thank you Thomas, I corrected the format to make a juicy introduction to the topic and added all the citations to the sources and created a good discussion. I hope you like this update. ~"Edit

=Abstract=

Proof of monism is a work of Mars Sterling Turner that includes the logical proof of monism, the proof of the scientific laws of monism, and the pragmatic proofs of monism. Three separate epistemologies are used as a method of proof; rationalism, scientism, and pragmatism.

=Introduction=

everything is made of one thing
Monism can be demonstrated by proving that everything is made of one thing ;

nothing is made of nothing and nowhere and at no time has nothing existed and nothing is nonexistence. (these are logical tautologies) and

the contraposition is; everything is made of something and something has always existed everywhere and something has as it's particular characteristics; existence.

These refer to the same 'something'; and together suggest that everything is made of one thing that has always existed everywhere and which has as it's particular characteristics; existence. QED

Scientific laws of monism
Proof--It is a scientific law that energy is eternal and omnipresent [S1 & S2]. It is a scientific law that eternal and omnipresent energy is all-power-full, and self-causal and consciousness [S3, Sc1, Sc2]. Eternal, omnipresent, all-power-full, self-causal, consciousness (energy) is a monism. Q.E.D.

energy is eternal
∑E, the sum of energy

Ek, kinetic energy

Ep, potential energy

proof; ∑E = Ek+Ep

Scientific Law (1); Conservation of energy; energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

energy cannot be created

ergo by time reversal symmetry it is a scientific law that energy never was created

ergo energy cannot be created, never was created, energy exists and yet cannot be destroyed,

ergo it is a scientific law that energy is eternal. Q.E.D.

energy is omnipresent
E, energy

c, speed of light

m, mass

E/c^2 = m

proof; E = m c^2;

Scientific Law (2); mass - energy equivalence; mass can be seen as a form of potential energy

 * "Are not the gross bodies and light convertible into one another and may not Bodies receive much of their Activity from the Particles of Light which enter their Composition?"-Isaac Newton.

Electromagnetic radiation and matter are convertible into one another; in other words its a scientific law that energy is omnipresent. QED

energy is all-power-full
E, energy

P, power

Δ, increment

d, derivative

∫, integral

∇, gradient

t, time

s, space

ΔE = ΔE

ΔE/Δt = ΔE/Δt

ΔP = ΔE/Δt; axiom 1

ΔP = ΔE/Δs Δs/Δt

∇E = ΔE/Δs; axiom 2

ΔP = ∇E Δs/Δt

Δs/Δt = Δv; axiom 3

ΔP = ∇E Δv

dP = ∇E dv

∫dP = ∫ ∇E dv

proof; P = ∫ ∇E dv

Scientific Law (3); Power is the transformation of energy over space and time.

All expressions of power are transformations of energy

ergo it is a scientific law that eternal and omnipresent energy [S1 & S2] is all-power-full Q.E.D.

energy is self-causal
Scientific Corollary (1); Every cause involves energy and every effect involves energy [S3]

eternal and omnipresent energy [S1 & S2] has nothing to interact with except itself.

at the universal level (eternal and omnipresent) causal determinism becomes causal self-determinism.

ergo it is a scientific law that eternal and omnipresent energy [S1 & S2] is self-causal Q.E.D.

causal as in a process through time

energy is consciousness
Scientific Corollary (2): self-causal [Sc1] implies self-determination

self-determination implies teleological

teleological implies consciousness

ergo it is a scientific law that energy is consciousness QED

resolved paradox of omnipotence
Power is defined as the transformation of energy, not the destruction of energy. The inability to destroy itself does not contradict being all-power-full. Therefore energy cannot destroy itself.

To create and to lift both involve the transformation of energy. The monism may be an infinite energy and a rock which has finite form cannot exist in an infinite substantial state. Therefore the monism cannot create a rock that it cannot lift.

Therefore the monism is natural.

Note; Resolving the omnipotence paradox demonstrates a clarified understanding of reality.

This pragmatically proves that monism exists. QED

Refuting Laplace's demon
causal determinism is 'refuted' at the universal scale with causal self -determinism because there is nothing external to interact with.

this clarifies our understanding of reality and thus pragmatically proves that monism exists. QED

=Discussion=

Identity of indiscernibles
Two seemingly separate things having the same ontological properties are actually one and the same thing.

Energy is the one thing
Everything is made of energy (energy is omnipresent) and both also are eternal and have as their particular characteristics existence (have to be made of energy to exist)

YHWH is energy (the one thing)
YHWH, according to theologians is eternal, omnipresent, and all-power-full

Panpsychism
With the perspectives of YHWH, energy, and the one thing; we find a panpsychism

Engineering consciousness hypothesis
if energy is consciousness then consciousness must be engineerable

energy gradient or force is will

energy density is intent

energy density gradient is intelligence

energy flux or flow is wisdom; generalization

energy flux density is cognition; predication

energy flux density gradient is recognition; implication

possible experiments to check for IQ differences
1) helmet with high mass;

2) helmet with inward facing North polarity magnets;

3) place body in high voltage capacitor

resolved problem of the non-physical
Define "physical";

By physical, does one mean 3-space local realism at no greater than the speed of light?

Such that the following are non-physical;

(1) any spacial dimensions higher than 3

(2) non-locality and quantum entanglement

(3) superluminal speed and negative refractive index

Or by "physical" does one equivocate to mean "natural"?

The monism is natural.

dual aspect monism
So you have the physical and non-physical and both are made of the same thing; energy

nothing is not
my rebuttal to ontological nihilism is these logical tautologies;

nothing is not, nothing is nothing , nothing equals nothing, nothing implies nothing, nothing has the property of nothing, nothing exists as nothing, nothing is the cause of nothing, nowhere and at no time has nothing existed, nothing is made of nothing, nothing is in nothing, nothing is nonexistence.

=Epistemology of proofs; Methods=

This work uses the following three epistemologies as methods of inquiry; rationalism, scientism, and pragmatism.

Rationalism
(where you show something is a logical tautology or that it metalogically follows), and

Scientism
(where you use scientific laws as axioms to deduce more scientific laws), and

Pragmatism
(where you merely show the utility of something; that it is useful).

=References=


text:
Talk:Lentis/Antimaskers in the U.S. during the 2020 Pandemic

I originally wanted to add in a timeline I made to the section about President Trump, but Wikibooks would not allow me to upload it. Jw8kc (discuss • contribs) 05:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)jw8kc