Those who love the military bureaucratic complex love death, as this poem by Alfred, Lord Tennyson clearly shows. Nowadays, murder is furtive, hiding its ugliness under its robes of Human Rights, and Responsibility To Protect. Imperial England regarded war as the highest form of activity. Compulsory education, regimentation and Moralist hypocrisy produced to a population who corrupted all values.
But much braver than these idiots is the Peasant who stays at home and serves his wife and his family.
'Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred
'Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns!' he said.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
'Forward the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismayed?
Not though the soldier knew
Someone had blundered.
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die.
Into the Valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of hell
Rode the six hundred.
Flashed all their sabres bare,
Flashed as they turned in the air,
Sabr'ing the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wondered.
Plunged in the battery smoke,
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reeled from the sabre stroke
Shattered and sundered.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell.
They that had fought so well
Came through the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!'
Sunday, 28 April 2013
Saturday, 27 April 2013
Saints and Hierarchy - Sundays with John Ball
The Roman Church recognises the true God in the Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
However, the grave sin of the Roman Church is that it adds on to the true faith. For the true Christian, Christ is sufficient. Because He is our King and High Priest we do not need kings and priests, bureaucrats and bishops.
For the Catholic, Christ is not sufficient. Along with their dogma, their tradition, their idolatry and their Mariology, Catholics also add minor gods to intercede for us with God.
So, when they wish to approach God, Catholics come across a whole load of gatekeepers barring the way. These are the priests and the saints.
We have come across the priests before. We know that for Christians there is a priesthood of ALL believers. Like wise ALL believers are saints.
The word saint comes from the word ‘sanctify’, to be made holy.
Once we know that Jesus is our Saviour, the Holy Ghost improves us. We live with Christ as a part of us. We measure ourselves against Him daily. We seek what is pleasing to God, not ourselves. We seek righteousness, not what we can get away with.
Of course, in this life, we never reach perfection, but by turning our faces away from ourselves and towards God, we are a little less selfish, cruel, mad and bad than we would have been otherwise.
However, the Roman Church scorns the holiness of the everyday saint and invents super saints, Saint Anthony, Saint Francis, Saint Rita and so on.
Even in heaven, the Roman idolaters wish to maintain their hierarchy, for that is what they really worship - Hierarchy.
On earth they have their pope and their cardinals, their bishops and their priests and last of all the peasants, the poor bloody infantry.
On earth they have their saints and their Madonna, there to intercede for us with God.
They are mere inventions, created to justify the tyranny of priests on earth.
However, the grave sin of the Roman Church is that it adds on to the true faith. For the true Christian, Christ is sufficient. Because He is our King and High Priest we do not need kings and priests, bureaucrats and bishops.
For the Catholic, Christ is not sufficient. Along with their dogma, their tradition, their idolatry and their Mariology, Catholics also add minor gods to intercede for us with God.
So, when they wish to approach God, Catholics come across a whole load of gatekeepers barring the way. These are the priests and the saints.
We have come across the priests before. We know that for Christians there is a priesthood of ALL believers. Like wise ALL believers are saints.
The word saint comes from the word ‘sanctify’, to be made holy.
Once we know that Jesus is our Saviour, the Holy Ghost improves us. We live with Christ as a part of us. We measure ourselves against Him daily. We seek what is pleasing to God, not ourselves. We seek righteousness, not what we can get away with.
Of course, in this life, we never reach perfection, but by turning our faces away from ourselves and towards God, we are a little less selfish, cruel, mad and bad than we would have been otherwise.
However, the Roman Church scorns the holiness of the everyday saint and invents super saints, Saint Anthony, Saint Francis, Saint Rita and so on.
Even in heaven, the Roman idolaters wish to maintain their hierarchy, for that is what they really worship - Hierarchy.
On earth they have their pope and their cardinals, their bishops and their priests and last of all the peasants, the poor bloody infantry.
On earth they have their saints and their Madonna, there to intercede for us with God.
They are mere inventions, created to justify the tyranny of priests on earth.
Friday, 26 April 2013
Romans - Civilization and Decay
Civilization and Decay is a book written by the historian Brooks Adams, first published in 1895. In his section on the Romans, Adams makes some interesting observations on the relationship between capital accumulation and a standing army, immigration and women's liberation.
'Had Italy been more tranquil, it is not inconceivable that the small farmers might even then have sunk into the serfdom which awaited them under the Empire, for in peace the patricians might have been able to repress insurrection with their clients; but the accumulation of capital had scarcely begun, and several centuries were to elapse before money was to take its ultimate form in a standing army.
Meanwhile, troops were needed almost every year to defend the city; and, as the legions were a militia, they were the enemy and not the instrument of wealth.
Until the organization of a permanent paid police they were, however, the highest expression of force, and, when opposed to them, the moneyed oligarchy was helpless, as was proved by the secession to the Mons Sacer.'
'To speak with more precision, force changed the channel through which it operated. Native farmers and native soldiers were needless when such material could be bought cheaper in the North or East. With money the cohorts could be filled with Germans; with money, slaves and serfs could be settled upon the Italian fields.......'
'The later campaigns on the Rhine and the Danube were really slave-hunts on a gigantic scale...................
'The infrequency of marriage, and the ruin of agriculture, affected the principles of population; and not only destroyed the strength of the present, but intercepted the hope of future generations.'
'When wealth became force, the female might be as strong as the male: therefore she was emancipated. through easy divorce she came to stand on an equality with a man in the marriage contract. She controlled her own property, because she could defend it; and as she had power she exercised political privileges. In the third century Julia Domna, Julia Mamaea, Soaemias, and others sat in the Senate, or conducted the administration.'
'Had Italy been more tranquil, it is not inconceivable that the small farmers might even then have sunk into the serfdom which awaited them under the Empire, for in peace the patricians might have been able to repress insurrection with their clients; but the accumulation of capital had scarcely begun, and several centuries were to elapse before money was to take its ultimate form in a standing army.
Meanwhile, troops were needed almost every year to defend the city; and, as the legions were a militia, they were the enemy and not the instrument of wealth.
Until the organization of a permanent paid police they were, however, the highest expression of force, and, when opposed to them, the moneyed oligarchy was helpless, as was proved by the secession to the Mons Sacer.'
'To speak with more precision, force changed the channel through which it operated. Native farmers and native soldiers were needless when such material could be bought cheaper in the North or East. With money the cohorts could be filled with Germans; with money, slaves and serfs could be settled upon the Italian fields.......'
'The later campaigns on the Rhine and the Danube were really slave-hunts on a gigantic scale...................
'The infrequency of marriage, and the ruin of agriculture, affected the principles of population; and not only destroyed the strength of the present, but intercepted the hope of future generations.'
'When wealth became force, the female might be as strong as the male: therefore she was emancipated. through easy divorce she came to stand on an equality with a man in the marriage contract. She controlled her own property, because she could defend it; and as she had power she exercised political privileges. In the third century Julia Domna, Julia Mamaea, Soaemias, and others sat in the Senate, or conducted the administration.'
Thursday, 25 April 2013
Pleasure - The Superiority of Woman
Here is an excerpt from Mary Malone's book, The Denial Of Woman.
'Consciousness is what separates humanity from the animals; consciousness of meaning, awareness of our mortality, awareness of the presence of God, the ability to make plans, play games, make patterns with words, reveal the truth in divine mathematics. And it is consciousness of pleasure that raises Woman above not only the animals but also above Man.
Woman alone has an organ solely devoted to her pleasure. Consciousness of pleasure shows woman to be the crown of creation.
The animal is unaware of pleasure. The sensitive areas of Man's anatomy simply serve to hasten his relief.
A man's pleasure is essentially negative, lying in release, the orgasm of death. Woman's pleasure is positive, affirmative, life giving, as Man serves Woman with the power of his life...................
Only a woman can truly give herself over to the pleasures of the flesh.
The man gives to the woman, and the woman takes.
Like the bull serves the cow, the man serves the woman.
Woman is served. It is she who matters.
A man is focused on serving a woman but she is only concerned about her own pleasure.
There may be no such thing as happiness, but pleasure is very real.
A woman is superior to a man in so many ways, and in their intimacy this is all too clear.
Through the ceremony of love, only Woman, alone in creation, experiences the summit of holy pleasure.'
'Consciousness is what separates humanity from the animals; consciousness of meaning, awareness of our mortality, awareness of the presence of God, the ability to make plans, play games, make patterns with words, reveal the truth in divine mathematics. And it is consciousness of pleasure that raises Woman above not only the animals but also above Man.
Woman alone has an organ solely devoted to her pleasure. Consciousness of pleasure shows woman to be the crown of creation.
The animal is unaware of pleasure. The sensitive areas of Man's anatomy simply serve to hasten his relief.
A man's pleasure is essentially negative, lying in release, the orgasm of death. Woman's pleasure is positive, affirmative, life giving, as Man serves Woman with the power of his life...................
Only a woman can truly give herself over to the pleasures of the flesh.
The man gives to the woman, and the woman takes.
Like the bull serves the cow, the man serves the woman.
Woman is served. It is she who matters.
A man is focused on serving a woman but she is only concerned about her own pleasure.
There may be no such thing as happiness, but pleasure is very real.
A woman is superior to a man in so many ways, and in their intimacy this is all too clear.
Through the ceremony of love, only Woman, alone in creation, experiences the summit of holy pleasure.'
Wednesday, 24 April 2013
The Economy Must Grow
We have arrived at a situation where economic growth means less prosperity. When wealth is measured as economic turnover it simply means that we are peddling a bit faster.
Economic growth once meant that more people sat on chairs instead of sitting on boxes, but these days, most probably you are simply paying the Gatekeeper.
By expanding the amount of state spending New Labour simply expanded the amount of obstacles we have to overcome to go about our daily lives.
On the one hand, advances in technology make us wealthier, yet on the other, increased economic activity has led to increased poverty. So we live in smaller houses, but clothes are cheaper, and cars are more comfortable. Technology means that many cancers are no longer fatal, yet many hospital wards are filthy.
At one time, economic growth was sure to mean an increased amount of tangible goods.
This is certainly true in agricultural and manufacturing economies. You can touch and feel and see the increased wealth.
But a service economy is an economy built on sand. Now you see the service, now it’s gone.
And the best way to grow a service economy is to create needs, and the best way to do this is to create regulations, impediments, obstacles:- all for our own good, of course.
For a little while we can persuade the rest of the world that our busyness is equal to their business, that our services are equal to their tangible goods, that the money spent on mental health care of perfectly normal children is the equivalent of building a bridge.
We persuade ourselves that our activity merits the wealth we see as our birth right, disguising the fact that much of this wealth is merely tribute from our informal empire.
The pound will remain high hopefully and the foreigner will still send us his tangible goods for a pittance. That is 'our' aim.
(If not, we can always bomb and pillage a new Libya.)
To continue the pretence, to cover our nakedness, we borrow somebody else’s clothes.
We just keep on calling in the profit on 'our' overseas investments and when it falls short we borrow, continuing the pretence that creating regulations is as good as creating chairs.
We reached the tipping point some years ago. It doesn’t pay for the brightest and the best to work and create true wealth. It’s a lot easier to work the system.
The economy must grow to keep the peasants running on the treadmill of taxation and debt.
Economic growth means the centralization of power and wealth, the maintenance of the world wide pyramid of power.
Areas of economic growth in recent years include the medication industry, the security industry and the regulation industry. I don't know if I'm any richer, but I'm definitely more controlled.
Economic growth once meant that more people sat on chairs instead of sitting on boxes, but these days, most probably you are simply paying the Gatekeeper.
By expanding the amount of state spending New Labour simply expanded the amount of obstacles we have to overcome to go about our daily lives.
On the one hand, advances in technology make us wealthier, yet on the other, increased economic activity has led to increased poverty. So we live in smaller houses, but clothes are cheaper, and cars are more comfortable. Technology means that many cancers are no longer fatal, yet many hospital wards are filthy.
At one time, economic growth was sure to mean an increased amount of tangible goods.
This is certainly true in agricultural and manufacturing economies. You can touch and feel and see the increased wealth.
But a service economy is an economy built on sand. Now you see the service, now it’s gone.
And the best way to grow a service economy is to create needs, and the best way to do this is to create regulations, impediments, obstacles:- all for our own good, of course.
For a little while we can persuade the rest of the world that our busyness is equal to their business, that our services are equal to their tangible goods, that the money spent on mental health care of perfectly normal children is the equivalent of building a bridge.
We persuade ourselves that our activity merits the wealth we see as our birth right, disguising the fact that much of this wealth is merely tribute from our informal empire.
The pound will remain high hopefully and the foreigner will still send us his tangible goods for a pittance. That is 'our' aim.
(If not, we can always bomb and pillage a new Libya.)
To continue the pretence, to cover our nakedness, we borrow somebody else’s clothes.
We just keep on calling in the profit on 'our' overseas investments and when it falls short we borrow, continuing the pretence that creating regulations is as good as creating chairs.
We reached the tipping point some years ago. It doesn’t pay for the brightest and the best to work and create true wealth. It’s a lot easier to work the system.
The economy must grow to keep the peasants running on the treadmill of taxation and debt.
Economic growth means the centralization of power and wealth, the maintenance of the world wide pyramid of power.
Areas of economic growth in recent years include the medication industry, the security industry and the regulation industry. I don't know if I'm any richer, but I'm definitely more controlled.
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
Gatekeepers
One of the ideas the British government is considering in order to raise more revenue is that of allowing private companies to run the main roads and motorways of England. The idea is that the companies will recoup the money they spend on maintenance and new roads by levying a toll on road users each time they travel.
Revolting Peasant seems to remember something in the history books about the promotion of trade by the French Revolutionaries who abolished tolls and customs posts within French territories, the Zollverein customs union in Germany in the nineteenth century, the absence of customs posts between the states of North America.
The free movement of goods led to trade, exchange, travel, material and intellectual gifts, and a huge rise in prosperity all round.
Unfortunately, the bureaucracy likes to monitor and impede each and every economic action. It is a way of justifying its otherwise unnecessary existence.
Everywhere we see purchase taxes. In some places in Europe, cafes and restaurants must add over 20% tax to the cost of every transaction. Needless to say customers stay away and businesses fold.
By regulating and taxing all our activities, the bureaucrats put an obstacle on everything we do.
It is like riding a bike with the brake on. It’s just hard work.
In the end people give up trying and take the easiest option, inertia, the one where there are fewest gate keepers.
People become poorer and increasingly demoralised.
Revolting Peasant seems to remember something in the history books about the promotion of trade by the French Revolutionaries who abolished tolls and customs posts within French territories, the Zollverein customs union in Germany in the nineteenth century, the absence of customs posts between the states of North America.
The free movement of goods led to trade, exchange, travel, material and intellectual gifts, and a huge rise in prosperity all round.
Unfortunately, the bureaucracy likes to monitor and impede each and every economic action. It is a way of justifying its otherwise unnecessary existence.
Everywhere we see purchase taxes. In some places in Europe, cafes and restaurants must add over 20% tax to the cost of every transaction. Needless to say customers stay away and businesses fold.
By regulating and taxing all our activities, the bureaucrats put an obstacle on everything we do.
It is like riding a bike with the brake on. It’s just hard work.
In the end people give up trying and take the easiest option, inertia, the one where there are fewest gate keepers.
People become poorer and increasingly demoralised.
Monday, 22 April 2013
Wilkes and Liberty
In the not so distant past English schoolchildren were taught a different history to the one they are taught now. For a start, Henry VIII was mentioned chiefly on account of his role in the Protestant Reformation, not his racy personal life.
Fifty years ago the English were a people, and England was the country where the English lived. The overwhelming majority of the population had ancestors who had lived here not just a hundred years ago, but a thousand years ago.
So, in that time,x the English people had developed a culture distinct, not just from the peoples of far continents, but from the people of Europe too. The history of that distinct people was celebrated.
English children were taught the differences between the English and the Europeans - representative government, Protestantism, toleration, and not least, free speech and the freedom of the press.
And so children were taught about Elizabeth I and the fight for survival against Continental Catholic tyranny, the Civil War and the fight of Parliament against the despotism of Charles I, the Glorious Revolution and the establishment of limited monarchy, the Bill of Rights, Habaeus Corpus, the Act of Toleration, and the wars against the dictator Louis XIV of France.
Most English children also knew the name of John Wilkes, who 250 years ago today, published an article in the journal the North Briton that got him arrested.
King George III felt offended. Indeed, Wilkes was an offensive man, as well a very ugly man.
For offending the powerful, Wilkes was at various times arrested, declared an outlaw, imprisoned, fined, and expelled from Parliament. However, he kept on to the bitter end and helped establish the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of the press which lasted to the beginning of the twenty-first century and the rise of the post Fascist New Labour and ConDem governments.
Now, once again the press is regulated and people can be thrown into jail for expressing the wrong opinion.
People are guarded in expressing their views.
The United Kingdom enjoys a representative form of government. But if speech is censored, and free discussion is stifled, then, by its own terms, no election can be truly representative.
The government loses its legitimacy. It becomes a tyranny.
Fifty years ago the English were a people, and England was the country where the English lived. The overwhelming majority of the population had ancestors who had lived here not just a hundred years ago, but a thousand years ago.
So, in that time,x the English people had developed a culture distinct, not just from the peoples of far continents, but from the people of Europe too. The history of that distinct people was celebrated.
English children were taught the differences between the English and the Europeans - representative government, Protestantism, toleration, and not least, free speech and the freedom of the press.
And so children were taught about Elizabeth I and the fight for survival against Continental Catholic tyranny, the Civil War and the fight of Parliament against the despotism of Charles I, the Glorious Revolution and the establishment of limited monarchy, the Bill of Rights, Habaeus Corpus, the Act of Toleration, and the wars against the dictator Louis XIV of France.
Most English children also knew the name of John Wilkes, who 250 years ago today, published an article in the journal the North Briton that got him arrested.
King George III felt offended. Indeed, Wilkes was an offensive man, as well a very ugly man.
For offending the powerful, Wilkes was at various times arrested, declared an outlaw, imprisoned, fined, and expelled from Parliament. However, he kept on to the bitter end and helped establish the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of the press which lasted to the beginning of the twenty-first century and the rise of the post Fascist New Labour and ConDem governments.
Now, once again the press is regulated and people can be thrown into jail for expressing the wrong opinion.
People are guarded in expressing their views.
The United Kingdom enjoys a representative form of government. But if speech is censored, and free discussion is stifled, then, by its own terms, no election can be truly representative.
The government loses its legitimacy. It becomes a tyranny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)