The Jesus Myth: Tacitus

Following on from my two previous entries exploring the myth of Jesus (The Jesus Myth and The Myth of Jesus: Antiquities of Josephus), I thought I would continue the series with another historical figure often cited as providing evidence for the existence of Jesus, through his writings; The great Roman Senator and Historian, Tacitus.

Contemporary Biblical scholars (who some seem oddly convinced, are excellent sources on the subject of history) who use Tacitus as evidence, cannot be considered neutral in the search for the ‘real Jesus‘. The Biblical Scholar, and often cited, Craig Evans uses Tacitus as evidence for Christ. The same Craig Evans once wrote

“The archaeological evidence shows that Jesus grew up in a small village, Nazareth, about four miles from Sepphoris, a prominent city in the early first century C.E.

His body was placed in a tomb, with the expectation that his bones later would be gathered and placed in his family’s tomb. The Easter discovery dramatically altered this expectation.”

- There is of course, no archaeological evidence that Jesus grew up anywhere. It is quite clear that any historical analysis into the existence of Jesus, from Evans and other Biblical scholars, starts from the premise that Jesus existed. The ‘evidence’ is then framed around that premise. It is made to fit the dogma. They manipulate history, to fill in gaps. Scholars of the Qur’an will have a vastly different interpretation of “history” when it comes to Jesus, than a Biblical scholar trying to pass his work off as genuine history. Evans misleads on several occasions, in order to provide tenuous links to Jesus. He ends his piece with:

Just last week, a court in Israel concluded that there is no convincing evidence of fraud in the case of the ossuary bearing the inscription, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”

- Misleading, because the court actually said:

“We can expect this matter to continue to be researched in the archaeological and scientific worlds and only the future will tell. Moreover, it has not been proved in any way that the words ‘brother of Jesus’ refer to the Jesus who appears in Christian writings.”

- I would strongly advise mistrusting any ‘scholar‘ who continuously feels the need to say “historians in my field all agree“…. Perhaps point out that Biblical historians tended to agree that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, at one point too, despite all evidence to the contrary. Alfred Loisy, the Catholic Priest was demonised by Catholics at the time, for suggesting that the first five books, were not the work of Moses. Loisy’s work was widely rejected by “Biblical Scholars” keen to hold onto to their myth. This is because most of the ‘scholars‘ are Theologians, they have not trained as historians, and they amplify any piece of data they can use as evidence, regardless of its validity or importance. Why would we give them credit, beyond, say, that of the wonderful J. M. Robertson, who writes a great, eloquent and well reasoned account for his belief that Jesus is a myth, and the art of religious myth making (which can all be read here). The ‘history‘ presented by Theologians, is manipulative, and a conclusion reached before evidence is even begun to be collected and interpreted. Most cite Josephus, despite that source being a quite obvious later Christian addition, as well as most citing Tacitus at least once.

Tacitus, undoubtedly, was a great historian and his Annals are a wonderful commentary on the state of Rome during the first century of the Empire.

The particular passage we are focusing on, is Book 15, Chapter 44, of The Annals. In it, Tacitus states:

“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind”.

- This is the passage used by Christians as a non-Biblical, early reference to Jesus. In that sense, they’re right. It is a non-Biblical, early reference to Jesus. And that, is all it is. Nothing more. It simply isn’t credible evidence for the existence of Jesus and to suggest it is, is so horrifically devoid of a sense of an ability to be critical, it pains me. Let’s also note that Tacitus claims that they weren’t arrested for the fire, they were arrested for “hatred against mankind“. Not only are they an “immense multitude” (Which we know there weren’t), that the entire City has named “Christians” (suggesting their faith and creeds are well known throughout the city), Rome, and indeed, the Emperor himself convicts them for hatred of mankind.

Polydor Hochart tells us:

“It is inconceivable that the followers of Jesus formed a community in the city at that time of sufficient importance
to attract public attention and the ill-feeling of the people. It is more probable that the Christians were extremely discreet in their behaviour, as the circumstances, especially of early propaganda, required. Clearly we have here a state of things that belongs to a later date than that of Tacitus, when the increase and propagandist zeal of the Christians irritated the other religions against them, and their resistance to the laws of the State caused the
authorities to proceed against them.”

Arthur Drews, drawing on Hochart, says:

The interpolator, Hochart thinks, transferred to the days of Nero that general hatred of the Christians of which Tertullian speaks. Indeed, the French scholar thinks it not impossible that the phrase ” odium humani generis ” was simply taken from Tertullian and put in the mouth of Tacitus. Tertullian tells us that in his time the Christians were accused of being “enemies of the human race”.

It’s also important to note that the original Tacitus Annals Books 11 – 16 are lost. We only have copies, written centuries later. To suggest they are the exact word for word copies of the original, cannot be even close to confirmed. Especially given that those centuries, were Christian centuries, and involved a lot of other Christian forgeries.

There is however, certainly a more credible argument for it being that of Tacitus than the passage by Josephus. But it still isn’t definite. There are some tricky elements not quite reconciled, as Hochart and Drews point out. We must however note that the passage is most certainly written in Tacitus’s style, and it mentions Christians in such a harsh manner, it is unlikely to have been inserted by Christians at a later date. Whereas Josephus, inexplicably lavishes praise on the Christians, and insists Jesus is divine whilst he himself is a devout Jew. Which suggests, among other reasons, that he didn’t write it. Tacitus doesn’t. He is far more damning of the Christians. They were “hated for their abominations“, “a most mischievous superstition“, “hatred against mankind“. These are pretty vicious claims about the Christians. It’s doubtful that a Christian would have inserted this passage later. Though, not impossible. And closer examination seems to suggest the vicious language, is well masked. You will note that Tacitus exonerates the Christians from starting the fire. They are innocent according to Tacitus, and it is Nero who frames them. Suddenly, we have innocent Christian martyrs, persecuted by a crazed and immoral Pagan sect. And that’s exactly as history has perceived them. This may seem like an anti-Christian passage, but it has had the opposite effect entirely.

Forgery in the early Church was rampant. It was especially used to glorify early Christians. The German Theologian David Strauss wrote that the earliest Christian communities reworded the Gospels to suit certain local prejudices. Hegel noted that Christian doctrine continuously changed over the years to suit certain power structures. There is also, of course, debate over whether even Peter managed to reach Rome at all, let alone authored the First and Second Epistles of Peter (which, it is almost certain, he didn’t). There is also a lot of controversy over what St Paul actually said, what he wrote, what was forged under his name, where he preached, and how he died. Rewriting Christian history to suit a narrative is not new. Forgery is certainly not new in Christian history. Eusebius appears to have been a master at this.

There are some issues with the plausibility of the Tacitus reference, as being genuine. Like with the passage from Josephus, no early Christian writer, even those well versed in Tacitus, mention this passage at all. Eusebius, putting together all early sources on the life of Jesus, searching Pagan documents including Tacitus, (and my chief suspect in forging the Josephus passages, and suspiciously, the first to mention that Paul was killed in the persecution under Nero) did not mention Tacitus. Neither does Tertullian, a student of Tacitean works. Drews noted:

“none of the works of Tacitus have come down to us without interpolations”.

Secondly, the word “Christians” was not used in Rome, at that point in their history. They were often referred to as “the way“, but most popularly as “Saints” and “Disciples“. Acts 1:15 is testament to that:

“And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples.”

Others (including Eusebius) note that early Christians were known as Nazerenes. If we discount Josephus’s passages as inserted later by Christians, the first mention of the term “Christians” outside of the Bible, is Tacitus. At a time when it is unlikely they would be known by the name “Christians“. Christianity and Judaism did not have a relevant and noticeable split until the 2nd Century. It is also not true that “an immense multitude” of Christians existed in Rome at the time of the burning. There was barely a Christian multitude at all in Judea, let alone Rome. Given how widespread and dangerous the Christians apparently were, Nero’s Minister, Seneca, doesn’t mention them at all. In fact, for such a widespread movement apparently operating in Rome, that the city had already named ‘Christians‘, and openly hated, Tacitus doesn’t mention them anywhere else, at all, only briefly in the passage above. And no other early historian links the Christians to the burning of Rome.

So, whilst the text itself is a little stronger than Josephus, it isn’t set in stone as genuine. But even if it were, that is completely irrelevant.

The main problem with Tacitus used as evidence for the existence of Jesus begin prior to this passage and prior to the writing of the Annals.
It starts with Tacitus’s birth.

Tacitus was born 56ad. Probably in Southern France, known then as Gallia Narbonensis. So, in looking for contemporary sources for the existence of Jesus; anything written by Jesus, anything written from the time by people who supposedly flocked to see Jesus, anything written by social commentators at the time, and place in which Jesus was performing amazing, reality altering miracles, anything from contemporary Romans about this World changing preacher….. Tacitus was not. He was in fact born 20 years after Jesus supposedly died, 2000 miles away. So, another non-contemporary “source” working on hearsay.
Johannes Weiss, the German Theologian, once stated:

“Assuredly there were the general lines of even a purely fictitious Christian tradition already laid down about the year 100; Tacitus may therefore draw upon this tradition”

- There is no reason to believe Tacitus was doing anything but drawing upon an established tradition. Three of the four Gospels were quite possibly already written at that time. That Christianity existed, is not in question. Tacitus seems only to be reaffirming that Christianity existed.

Hearsay; because being non-contemporary, means he could only know about Jesus, second hand, at best. And it is at best, because the Annals was Tacitus’ final work before he died in 117ad. Which means, over a century after Jesus was supposedly born. It is unlikely at that time, that Tacitus would have spoken to disciples of Jesus, or any contemporary source that knew Jesus, being over 70 years later. If he did speak to disciples, we have no evidence for it. It is more likely that he knew the Christian story, from the Christian sects that were in Rome at that time. His statements are quite clearly statements of what the Christians believe, not a statement of fact.
Consider the following. Tacitus writes:

“Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”

- How is this any different, and any more credible a source for the existence of Jesus, than me, sitting in front of my laptop in 2013, commenting on the early days of Mormonism:

“Mormoni, from whom the Mormons derive their origin and name, visited Joseph Smith during the Presidency of John Quincy Adams.”

- I have never even visited Palmyra in New York, I was born about 3000 miles away, I wasn’t born at the time it happened, I have never spoken to those who knew Joseph Smith. I am simply writing a narrative that I’ve heard from others. As long as it is clear that Tacitus was not a contemporary of Jesus, nor spoke to or knew any of his disciples, nor, crucially, does he mention the crucifixion of St Peter, it is quite obvious that Tacitus can only base his passage referring to Jesus, on hearsay, from people who themselves, heard it from others.
This is more evident, given that the Romans didn’t keep crucifixion records, and so Tacitus’ mention of Jesus crucifiction, came from hearsay also. He was not working from an original source. It is all story and no fact.

Tacitus, writing ‘Histories’ Book 5, and specifically Chapters 8 – 10 describe Judea at the supposed time of Jesus. They make no mention of the crucifixion of Jesus as mentioned in Annals. They make no mention of Christians at all. They make no mention of miracles, or the dead rising from the ground, or Jerusalem in uproar at the arrival of Jesus.
Absolutely no mention of Christians, Christianity, or Jesus at all. What was happening in Judea according to ‘Histories’?

“Antony gave the throne to Herod, and Augustus, after his victory, increased his power. After Herod’s death, a certain Simon assumed the name of king without waiting for Caesar’s decision. He, however, was put to death by Quintilius Varus, governor of Syria; the Jews were repressed; and the kingdom was divided into three parts and given to Herod’s sons. Under Tiberius all was quiet.”

- Nothing. Turns out it was pretty quiet.

One writer attempting to refute the myth idea, says this:

No one is suggesting that a reference in Tacitus written at the end of 116 CE about events of 64 CE can be considered a clincher for the historical Jesus. However neither Tacitus nor Suetonius later, nor Celsus, nor Josephus if he mentions Jesus at all, raise the slightest doubt that Jesus was a flesh and blood character from their recent past.

- This is a complete straw man. (Though, Josephus doesn’t actually mention Jesus, so throwing that name into the bag is irrelevant, and Suetonius is even more dubious than Josephus) No one is suggesting Tacitus knew Jesus was not a real person. That is neither my argument, nor is it the intention of Tacitus’ writings. If it were, we may look into his other works for similar patterns and come to similar conclusions. For example, along with also suggesting that the mythical Romulus actually really did rule Rome, Tacitus tells us:

“Mankind in the earliest age lived for a time without a single vicious impulse, without shame or guilt, and, consequently, without punishment and restraints. Rewards were not needed when everything right was pursued on its own merits; and as men desired nothing against morality, they were debarred from nothing by fear. When however they began to throw off equality, and ambition and violence usurped the place of self-control and modesty, despotisms grew up and became perpetual among many nations. Some from the beginning, or when tired of kings, preferred codes of laws. These were at first simple, while men’s minds were unsophisticated. The most famous of them were those of the Cretans, framed by Minos; those of the Spartans, by Lycurgus, and, subsequently, those which Solan drew up for the Athenians on a more elaborate and extensive scale. ”

- Here, it seems pretty convincing for anyone, using “Tacitus is sure Jesus is a real, living human being” logic, that Tacitus also didn’t question the reality of Minos, the son of Zeus and Europa. He also doesn’t question the reality of Lycurgus, whom plenty of ancient historians doubt existed historically. He believes those two to be great law givers. He presents them, like he present Jesus, as actual historical figures. The question of whether the figure is real or not, is unimportant to Tacitus. That isn’t what he’s trying to prove.

The important aspect to apply to the Annals of Tacitus, with regard the mention of the Christians, is that it is hearsay. It is something Tacitus does throughout his work. Tacitus draws and myth, and presents them simply as stories – neither fact nor fiction – in a lot of his writings, not least in his apparent (and dubious) reference to Christians.

The fact remains; None of the historians and cultural writers living at the same time as Jesus, ever wrote about Jesus. I will again point to Philo as being the most damning source for Christians, in my view. Writing at the exact time Jesus apparently existed, writing about the exact places Jesus apparently performed all sorts of wondrous miracles; and does not mention him once, yet mentions plenty of other less impressive, and far more mundane anecdotes. It is clear that Josephus, also, does not mention Jesus once, despite his beloved father living in and around the area Jesus was supposedly causing shock waves.

Whether the Tacitus reference is genuine or not, is irrelevant. And that is because it is written too late to be considered contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus. If, whether a source is genuine or not is irrelevant, then there really is no reason to consider it at all. It cannot reasonably be considered evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Tacitus, born two decades later, writing five decades after that, relying on second (at best) hand information, and even then the passage is suspicious, is evidence for nothing except that Christians may have existed in Rome at the time of the Great Fire.

If you are reduced to looking for even the briefest of mentions, by a man who wasn’t there, or in fact, alive at the time, writing 100 years after the birth of the figure you’re trying to prove, in which he simply references a group of people in Rome at the time through rumours and hearsay; i’m afraid your search for the historical figure you’re arguing for, is baseless.

I want evidence. Show me distinct, obvious, uncompromised evidence. Evidence that is not based on hearsay accounts or ambiguous and slightly dubious sources. Evidence that is not just being moulded to fit a narrative that is devoid of any contemporary evidence. Then I will change my opinion. Until then, I remain firm in my belief that Jesus Christ never existed.

…wouldn’t you just eat a salad?

“we are always asked
to understand the other person’s
viewpoint
no matter how
out-dated
foolish or
obnoxious”

In my Politics class, we sit and have a rather tedious discussion most weeks. There is a bin in the corner, about 3 metres from where I sit. I sit with a bottle of water most weeks and finish it by the time the class is over. I wonder if I throw the empty bottle in the direction of the bin, if I will get it on target. I position myself by swinging slightly backward on my chair. I always decide against it. It is tedious because there is no control over the class. People talk on one table about subjects that are absolutely nothing to do with the original topic of debate. Others frequently don’t understand the point of the arguments made by specific political philosophers, and end up rambling on for a moment or two about nothing. They would say more, if they didn’t speak. The day previous, at the gym, in the changing room, a man was in the toilet cubicle. He obviously thought no one was in the toilet and randomly said “Oh fuck it’s a big one!!!!” I am not sure how to respond to that. It’s obviously a sentence of genius. Do I edge slowly toward the door and leave quietly? Or do I bow down in front of the cubicle and worship this legend as he comes out of his castle? Two Christian girls in our class, during a rather slow discussion on Nietzsche attempted to link the entire concept of democracy (not just modern democracy, democracy in general) to Christianity. Christians often narrow mindedly take credit for concepts they simply didn’t create; usually in the subject of art, as if without Christianity there would never have been a Leonardo. But I’ve never seen such a terrible argument presented as to why democracy is a loving gift bestowed upon the World by that beacon of democracy; Christianity.

I pointed out that forms of democracy (quite different to democracy today, I accept) appeared long before Christianity stamped its ugly, overbearing foot on the progress of humanity. One of the two girls looked at me as if I was an utter idiot. She told me, in a naturally patronising voice that democracy came long after Christianity and was a product of it. I mentioned Rome to her, and the election of Tribunes of the People’s assembly, the Senate, and that after around 300bc the lower classes were allowed to stand for office, and that although Rome’s democracy was massively flawed; it was still democratic by the standards of that particular time. The Roman people idolised their Republic. They were scared of absolute power. The Ancient Greeks, long before Jesus Christ wasn’t born, invented Constitutions and in some respects, invented Democracy. She said “no“.

Then more talking ensued…

One person talking louder to make themselves known after the last person. About eight different conversations in the same small room is too much even for my confidence and ego to try to fight over. I dropped my argument. I stared around the room and out of the window. My Kindle holds thousands of books. I have downloaded at least 200 so far, and have only started reading one. Tony Blair’s most recent book. It’s very self serving and has an air of utter arrogance about it. He describes himself as a rebel at heart. He was certainly a great statesman and I have a lot of time for much of what he achieved. But the fact remains, his “modernising” turned the Labour Party into a Tory-Lite Party, capitulating to the excessive power of finance capital. I am reading poems by Bukowski too. As you can tell by the start of this blog. I wish I had more time, and a quiet room. That way, I would have spent the next thirty minutes destroying the argument of massively misinformed, delusional Christians. I get a kind of sadistic enjoyment out of it. I don’t respect or understand their view, when their view is ridiculous, and just outright bullshit.

Democracy, previous to Rome can be traced back as far as pre-historic civilisation. Tribes working as a unit would presume to work together far more democratically, for the common good, than any system forced upon humanity during Christianities harsh hold over Europe. In fact, Christian Europe resembled a system far closer to the that advocated in the Old Testament. The first Pope, in the Bible, says:

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, ¹⁴ or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. ¹⁵ For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. ¹⁶ Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. ¹⁷ Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.
-1 Peter 2:13-17

I think that’s pretty conclusive. Firstly, I take issue with ‘live as God’s slaves’. No. The Christian God disgusts me. I cannot think of anyone worse, to be the ‘slave’ of.  Secondly, it is evident that the first Catholic Pope demanded that his contempories submit to the sovereign authority, whom at the time, was an Emperor, far removed from any democratic principles. St Peter’s role in the Church spanned four Roman Emperors; Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and eventually being crucified under the despotic lunatic Nero. We don’t know who he was writing about when he demanded we all submit to Caesar. I doubt it was Nero, given that Nero really didn’t like Christians. But even if St Peter had demanded that the Caligula, Claudius or Tiberius were to be submitted to entirely, the nature of those first three Emperors after Augustus should be examined. Perhaps they were deep down, democratic?

Tiberius was massively disliked, especially before he died. He spent far more money on the Imperial palaces than on the people. Although the area that St Peter would have lived for much of his life; Israel, has a town named “Tiberias” after the Emperor………. created by…….. King Herod. Executions for small crime went up under Tiberius. He was a bit of a maniac. In fact, he was so anti-democratic, he had his main opponent in the Senate; Gaius Asinius, executed for treason, simply for opposing the Emperor. Why would a loving God desire his faithful subjects to give themselves up to such tyranny? Why didn’t he demand the overthrow of such evil, for a far more democratic model? Why wasn’t that God preaching democratic values, if democracy truly is the product of Christian logic?

Caligula was no better. He had absolutely every Senator who opposed the Emperor investigated, and if he deemed it necessary, executed. This sent a stark warning to the Senate and the final remnant of the old Republic; submit entirely to the Emperor, or die. He then started dressing as a God in public, he called himself Jupiter in documents, and he made Senators who he distrusted, run by the side of his chariot to show their inferiority. Two temples were created and funded by Caligula, for the sake of worshipping…. Caligula. Perhaps this is the beacon of democracy and rule by the people that St Peter was obviously referring to when he demanded people ‘honor the emperor’.

Claudius, likewise, was not elected by popular democratic means. He was the grandson of the sister of Augustus; Octavia. So he believed, through his bloodline, that he was entitled to the Imperial throne. Inherited public power is about as far removed from democracy as it is possible to get.  He pronounced himself the Judge and Jury in many trials during his reign. Absolutely less democratic than even the hardly democratic Republican era of Rome.

So, that leaves us with the notion that St Peter, when asking his people to submit as slaves to God and as subject to Caesar, did not care one bit for democracy, or for personal and intellectual freedom, or the plight of the Imperial subjects and the injustices within the Empire. And so we must conclude, that early Christianity has more in common with its Middle Ages history, than it does with a couple of Christian students’ warped interpretation of democratic history.

Christianity during the Middle Ages was most certainly responsible for the most cruel period of human history in Europe. It was also used as the basis for Monarchy. Kings and Queens did not use Christianity in a manipulative sense just to hold on to power, they genuinely believed, as did their subjects, that they had a divine right to rule, laid out by God. They had inherited the throne of David. That was the justification for Monarchy ruled by ruthless, violent Christianity. Henry VIII was so worried about how he was to be viewed as a King by God, that he divorced Catherine of Aragon, on the pretence that God had punished him by giving him no male heir with Catherine, because she was his dead brother’s wife first.

The Pope arguably had the most power in Europe during the Middle Ages. English people did not consider themselves English first. They considered themselves loyal to the Pope. They did not elect the Pope and they had no say over the policies coming out of Rome. They merely had to accept what the Vatican was telling them. Thomas More (who, quite comically, is now a Saint) advocated the burning to death of anyone who dared to own a Bible in English. Catholics believed only the Vatican and those who were scholarly and rich enough to read Latin, should have the right to interpret the Bible for the rest of the Catholic World. That couldn’t be less democratic if it tried. It wasn’t until Henry broke with Rome in 1534, that England as a culture and a united people started to take some shape. But even then, the despotic power of Rome was merely transfered to the despotic power of the King. No form of democracy was created. The beginnings of Protestantism were not democratic. Americas beginnings were not democratic. The Athens system in the centuries preceding the apparent birth of Jesus included a system that did not allow women or slaves the right to vote. America, similarly started off, for a very long time actually, not allowing women or slaves or anyone whose skin colour was slightly darker than their own, the right to vote.

Skip a couple of Centuries to America, and some would argue that Christianity was responsible for the birth of the nation. Not true. The historian Robert T Handy argues that:

“No more than 10 percent– probably less– of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations.”

Most of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons and Deists. They were, as was America, products of the Enlightenment. Freemasonry and the thinking of the Enlightenment, the moving away from strict Christian dogma, is far more important to the development of early America. George Washington, the first President of the United States of America, and the man who was essentially the pillar on which the early Republic stood and managed to survive the early years, was a devout Freemason from the early 1750s, until the day he died. He became a master mason at the end of the 1590s.

Thomas Jefferson famously despised the dogma of organised religion, stating:

“Question with boldness even the existence of a god.”

Jefferson received a letter from the third President, John Adams, stating:

“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

It is thus evident that the United States was not the product of some new found Christian love and appreciation for democratic principles. The Constitution specifically states that there shall be no religious oppression. It does not mention the wondrous contribution Christianity has made to the onset of democracy.

Democracy, like Capitalism, like falls of Kingdoms and Republics and Empires is the result of social evolution and the collective cultural mind of a population rebelling to meet the challenges of major shifts in consciousness and technology and economics. It is not the result of Christian dogma.

The historical reality is almost always, on every issue, entirely at odds with Christian delusion. They never accept it. They invent history. Just like the two girls invented history, and invented their own special brand of logic in my politics class. It was however, one of the only times that my mind hasn’t wandered in that class. Usually we talk about one particular philosopher and it just gets too crowded with the sounds of unrecognisable voices blurred together. It all just sounds like a constant irritating ringing in my ear. There was a man sat out a chip shop in Leicester yesterday. It was 11am. The chip shop must have only just opened. He had a huge bowl of chips. He had his legs wide open, to accommodate the mass of draping fat that swung down below his knees as he sat. At that point, wouldn’t you just accept you may have been wrong all those years? Wouldn’t you just eat a salad?

Render unto Caesar…

As you walk down the Rue de Souffle in the Latin Quarter of Paris, looking straight ahead of you, it is impossible to ignore the pure beauty of the Pantheon as it towers above everything else surrounding it. The road, named after the Architect of the Pantheon; Jacques-Germain Soufflot, is at first glance a fitting tribute to the French master of Neoclassical architecture. Voltaire, who is buried in the Crypt at the Pantheon, is said to have been taken in the funeral procession to the Pantheon, alongside a crowd on the Rue de Souffle, of over a million people.

Inside the Pantheon, you will have already past the huge columns forcefully holding up the entrance. You are then greeted by an amazing inner dome, which reaches to the sky, and is just as wide as it is tall. In the centre, is a giant piece of scientific brilliance, by the scientist Léon Foucault, erected in 1851 with the intention of being the first to demonstrate the rotation of the Earth on its axis. I cannot explain the experiment, because it hurts my head to think about it too much; needless to say, it is a work of beauty.

An equally as beautiful work of art stands at the back of the main hall. I stood in awe for a while at the incessantly attractive sculpture, depicting the “heroes” of the French revolution. The realism is romanticism at its finest, surrounded by neoclassicalism at its finest.

The Crypt is now the resting place of some of the greatest French artists, writers, philosophers, poets and politicians that ever lived. Voltaire, Mirabeau, Victor Hugo, Rousseau, Soufflot, Braille, Curie, Dumas; are all buried in the Crypt at the Pantheon.

And yet, despite all of this, there is a sign within the crypt at the Pantheon, letting people know, that actually, the structure is in constant need of restoration because its falling apart.

The successful failure, as i’m naming the beautiful yet slightly shoddy craftsmanship of the Pantheon in its attempt to resurrect the architectural genius of the Pantheon still standing strongly in the centre of Rome, is mirrored in 19th Century France when it comes to the death of the Monarchy, an attempt at Republic, and the falling into Empire. Rome experienced much the same structure of governance.

The last King of Rome; Lucius Tarquinius was driven to exile by Lucius Brutus in 509bc, and the Roman Republic era began. The end of the Roman Republic arguably ended with Julius Caesar being proclaimed Dictator for life in around late 45bc. Caesar was considered the hero of the common people. His face was stamped on coins, he sat on a throne-like seat in the Senate which had no one had dared to do since the fall of the Kingdom, he then had a statue of himself erected. This aroused suspicion that he intended to overthrow the beloved Republic and establish himself as King (which is probably true), and so a group of Senators lead by Brutus (an apparent ancestor of the Brutus who established the Republic 450 years previous, though it isn’t provable) murdered Caesar in the Theatre of Pompey (not in the Senate house, as most people think), underneath the statue of Pompey; Caesar’s old friend turned enemy. In killing the people’s hero Julius Caesar, his adopted son Octavian soon became the people’s hero, and used his popularity to hunt down and kill all of Caesar’s killers, to do away with Marc Anthony and to establish himself, cunningly, as the first Emperor of Rome; Augustus.

Similarly, as King Louis XVI was killed off by revolutionaries set to form a Republic, the aspirations of a young general who had visions of expanding the territory of France, as Caesar had done as General of the Roman Legions during his expanding of the Roman territory into Gaul (modern day France, Austria, Switzerland); Napoleon Bonaparte. After his success as a General, Bonaparte became First Consulate of the French Senate in 1799. Effectively, granting himself the right of Dictator for life, as Caesar had done. Following Caesar’s lead, Bonaparte started to wear the crown of laurel leaves. Caesar took the idea of wearing a laurel wreath from the old Greek tales of the God Apollo, who was always depicted wearing one. Caesar was putting himself on a par with the Gods. Napoleon was trying to emulate Caesar. It is almost scientific. The violent change from Kingdom to Republic to Empire is almost the necessary result of socio-historical processes that have been seen in Rome, France, and to some extent, the USA. Whilst personal characteristics of people like Caesar and Napoleon, and their lust and arrogance for absolute power are important in the narrative, they are merely one part in a much larger narrative of history that leads from Kingdom to Empire. When Republic is faltering, it is amazing to see, throughout history, an overbearing and maniacal personality appears on the scene almost right on cue, to force his way into the seat of power. Empire is inevitable at that point, and Empire is necessarily imperialist by nature. Napoleon and Caesar were both not popular with the nobility of their respective Country’s before in their younger days. Napoleon felt he was of social inferiority in comparison to the French nobility, he was an introvert and a loner by nature. Caesar’s family had very little political influence and he was a bit of an outcast. Napoleon saw, as did Caesar, that the State was falling, and a strong political and military mind could quite easily fill the gap. Napoleon once remarked:

“What a great people were these Romans, especially down to the Second Punic War. But Caesar! Ah Caesar! That was the great man!”

Napoleon, had himself crowned Emperor, emulating Caesar’s adopted son, Octavian (Augustus) in 1804. The French Empire expanded at first, but soon crumbled under his leadership. He successfully defeated coalition partners of Europe five times, before tempting fate with an ill conceived invasion of Russia in 1812, and was forced to abdicate and exiled in 1813. The strong and mystifying exterior of Napoleon, soon crumbled, like the walls of the Pantheon.

One could argue that Napoleon is actually not at all the personified mirror of the Pantheon, and actually far more successful than Julius Caesar given that Caesar was murdered before he could become Emperor, whereas Napoleon was successful in turning France into an Empire, taking control of most of Western and Central Europe in less than twelve years, and lasted a decade more than Caesar after taking power. Napoleon was a genius. Although, one would have to take into consideration the lasting legacy of both Caesar and Napoleon. For example, every Emperor of Rome was referred to as Caesar, for over 400 years after his death. The name Napoleon has long since died, other than Orwell’s use of the name for a horse in Animal Farm. After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe was plunged into centuries of the Dark Ages; a truly regressive era in our history. When Napoleon fell, France thrived. The people adored Caesar. The people did not adore Napoleon. Caesar was proclaimed a God, and worshipped as such for the next half a millennium. Napoleon never came close to such accolade. The model of Rome during the Empire has been the inspiration for great artists, architects (such as Souffle’s Pantheon, and even as far as the Capitol building in Washington D.C), sculptors, writers, and people like Napoleon have tried to copy the system of governance for centuries since the final collapse of Rome in the fifth century. I cannot imagine the short phase of French Empire is going to be the inspiration for any such renaissance. The greatest poets during the Renaissance in Florence and Milan were crowned with a laurel wreath, in the style of Caesar to show that they were the masters of the poets. The legacy of the Roman Empire is far stronger and has a greater romance attached to it, than Bonaparte’s France.

The brief revival of the French Empire under Napoleon III was arguably more successful in terms of policy successes and the modernisation of France as an industrial power. And yet Napoleon III is often overlooked as a key figure in French history. His taking of power from the 2nd Republic which was established after the fall of his uncle, Napoleon, was largely a result of the fact that the new Republic was not a Republic at all, having abolished Universal Suffrage and a left over from the political upheaval of the fifty years previous. Stable government had not been known in France by the time Napoleon III took control, for around sixty years.

By the time Octavian became Emperor Augustus in Rome, the Republic had been dead for a long time. Whilst Augustus’ reign was far superior to Caesar’s and Napoleon’s and most Emperors with perhaps the exception of Trajan, he only managed to become Emperor – albeit cleverly and shrewdly – by building on the groundwork laid by his adoptive father, Julius Caesar. The political instability and the uncertain population was crying out for leadership; Octavian provided it.

Rome has a proud tradition. It, along with Ancient Greece certainly spawned Western Neoclassical art and architecture that has produced, with inspiration from the Ancient World, some spectacular works of art. The library in Helsinki is a great example of a Neoclassical building with a modern twist. Le Petit Trianon at Versailles in Paris, has a White House-esque look to it, fundamentally Neoclassical, but modern in feel. St Peter’s in Vatican City, is beautifully designed, and looks back across the Tiber and across history, to its Roman and Pagan ancestry for inspiration. Rome is the father of such brilliance. As it is politically….

If the line of history is to play out again and again, then surely it is not a coincidence that the Republic of the United States of America, which emerged as a result of the violent revolution against Kingdom, is often considered to now be an Empire. But, why is there no Emperor? Why has the Republic not collapsed as History would proscribe? Is America a new kind of Empire? A purely economic Empire, that is a product of advanced Capitalism? A Capitalist American Empire that requires a Napoleon-esque strategic mind, not for Statism and the old conception of Empire, but for ruthless business, coupled with aggressive foreign policy; the new Empire. And so no longer requiring of an overbearing, too powerful Centralised State with a single powerful person at its helm, because that would be contradictory to its “free market” economic purposes and so does it transcend the part of history that would proscribe the fall into the hands of a single person, because the Emperor, is no longer a human being, but instead the excessive power of capital? Or is it destined, after a period of prolonged success, to follow an inevitable path of history?

The English Renaissance

The European Renaissance was a breeding ground for absolutely magnificent Italian painters and sculptors. Carravagio, an early Rembrandt, is a particular favourite of mine, his macabre use of shadowing is stunning. Bernini’s sculptors in the centre of Rome, define the city for me. But the likes of Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Titian, Donatello and Botticelli are synonymous with fantastic art work. Especially when you view them up close. Standing in the centre of the Sistine Chapel and gazing at Michelangelo’s handy work, is simply incredible.

So one wonders, why were there no great English Renaissance artists? Why did we miss out? I honestly cannot name one great English Renaissance artist up until the Hellenism of the Eighteenth Century; but even then, our artists were nothing in comparison to our Poets who invoked Antiquity when speaking of paradise. Lord Byron and John Keats among those.

Oscar Wilde wrote of this particular brand of English Renaissance as:

“of the vision of Homer as of the vision of Dante, of Keats and William Morris as of Chaucer and Theocritus. It lies at the base of all noble, realistic and romantic work as opposed to the colourless and empty abstractions of our own eighteenth-century poets anti of the classical dramatists of France, or of the vague spiritualities of the German sentimental school”

He shows here that 18th Century Romanticism, and Hellenism of the pre-Raphaelites were essentially the English catching up to the methodology of the Italian Renaissance artists two centuries previous. The essence, being a passionate romantic humanism. You can see this very essence, in the works of Millais and Rossetti. Works that take their inspiration from Antiquity, and Renaissance Europe. If you go to Tate Britain, you will see “Ecce Ancilla Domini” by Rossetti. You could be forgiven for thinking it was created in Ancient Greece or Quattrocentro Italy, or Renaissance Florence; it was produced in 19th Century England. And whilst these works certainly take inspiration from the Italian Renaissance (despite the Pre-Raphaelite’s apparent disdain for Renaissance artistry), they still have a wonderful individual quality of their own, that separate them into something entirely new, yet I can never quite figure out what that quality is. It is simply there. The Pre-Raphaelites represented a lost idea of spirituality, in an age of enlightenment. We can safely say, that England gained it’s Renaissance, two or three centuries after the rest of Europe.

But that still begs the question, why wasn’t England producing any art of any worth during the 15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries. I’d suggest, it was all because of Religion.

The Italian Renaissance artists of the 15th-17th Centuries, were all Roman Catholic. They followed the Catholic tradition to it’s very fundamentals. And whilst the art itself may have presented Holy figures as mere mortals, the grandeur of those Holy figures, was supremely Catholic; colourful and striking, romantic backdrops and visions of the Divine with human emotion and imperfections. The artists were commissioned by Popes and grand Catholic nobles like the Medici. Renaissance art in Italy, was Catholicism on canvas.

England, around that same time, had spent the 1530s breaking with Rome, and separating ourselves entirely, from the Continent. Catholicism became a dangerous practice. Even the Catholic Queen of England, was lucky to have survived it. Queen Catherine just so happened to be a close relative of the powerful Holy Roman Emperor, who was a staunch Catholic. She had his support. If it wasn’t for that relationship, she would have been almost certainly executed during the English Henrician reformation. Catholicism was dangerous in England in the 16th Century. Catholic extravagance, including it’s art, were not appreciated in England. The Reformers considered them to be the same sort of anti-Bible sentiment, as idol worship. The Pope, the great art work commissioner, was considered an anti-Christ, in the eyes of the English reformers. And so, by that logic, i’d argue that any attempt at such elaborate and extravagant art works used for the eminence of the Catholic Church, would have been utterly obscene, to the English Court.

The Court painter, the man behind the great portraits of Thomas More and Jane Seymore, was Hans Holbein, a man who followed the writings of Luther, and Erasmus. Holbein was a humanist, and gradually became very anti-Catholic. Perfect for the Tudor Court.

Catholicism, whilst it has been rather violent, and has a history of very unchristian-like viciousness, has undoubtedly produced some of history’s most beautiful works of art. One wonders what great works of art may have been produced throughout England, had the break from Rome not happened, and had Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon produced a son and heir in the first place.

Never be tired of England

Happy St Georges Day.
Did you know that King George III never formally acknowledge the independence of the USA? Therefore, we still own it. Nor did we agree to the full independence of Australia (The Australia Act of 1986, I choose to ignore). Therefore, we still own that too. And when I get there in July, I will proclaim myself Governor of Australia for Her Majesty The Queen. We’ll forget this silly “independence” thing in no time.

The Daily Mail in it’s quest to tarnish Nick Clegg as some great evil, had this to say earlier this week:

“His wife is Spanish, his mother Dutch, his father half-Russian and his spin doctor German. Is there ANYTHING British about Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg?”

It’s amazing isn’t it?
Nick Clegg, the posh English intelligent Lib Dem leader, is apparently an evil foreigner, despite the fact, that he was born….. in Berkshire.
Given that the husband of the Queen is a relative of the Russian tsars, I hope the Daily Mail will soon begin an anti-monarchy quest.

Today is St Georges day.
It is beautiful outside.
I have sat in my garden with a book and a drink sat by me, for most of it.
The reasons I do not fly the St Georges cross flag is something I dislike about the way it has been manipulated. St Georges cross and the Union Jack have been hijacked by the far right in recent years, to show that they aren’t too keen on muslims. It is used by those who keep claiming muslims are out to destroy England, rape your children, punch your grandmother in the face, and ban Christmas. It is from those who use the phrase “it’s political correctness gone mad” to cloak their inherent stupidity and ignorance. “You know, you can’t even smear shit into a a pakistani man’s face in the shape of the cross of St George whilst telling him to fuck off out the Country any more, without the politically correct bias liberal media telling you it’s racist. It’s political correctness gone mad!!!” I don’t want to associate myself with that type of person. Anyone who associates England with “the white race” is disgusting, in my view.

But I do love this country. In fact, I absolutely adore this country. I do not appreciate the far right telling me that I hate this country, simply because I am not a nazi. I do not believe in a singular concept of “Englishness”. My views on Englishness, are pretty post-modern in that respect. I love this country, for my own reasons, which I will now list.

I love the English summer time. I love traditional English seaside holidays. I love the sound of English amusement arcades on the seafront. I love Tudor history. I love being in the city centre for Diwali celebrations. I love the English countryside. I love standing in the sea on the English south coast despite it being freezing. I love the scent of England in the early summer mornings. I love English Christmas, the food, Morcambe and Wise, and bucks fizz. I love red post boxes. I love the majority of the people who are always polite, friendly, and tolerant. I love that I am the grandson of a World War II navy veteran. I love eccentric Brits. I love Camden. I love not understanding a word the speaker says over the tannoy at a local Tesco. I love Newstead Abbey. I love Bradgate Park. I love feeding ducks. I love those little green or red or blue or yellow arm bands the local swimming pools give you, to let you know when your time in the water is up. I love how we are a mash of cultural differences and historical struggles. I love how we cannot go a day without at least one cup of tea. I love Brit pop! I love getting into bed, under a huge new duvet on a freezing winter’s night. I love wearing an England football shirt throughout the World Cup and Euros every couple of years. I love reading the papers before the World Cup that tell me that Wayne Rooney is at his peak. I love not understanding why our clocks go forward and backward every now and again. I love trilby hats. I love speakers corner. I love hearing the sound of an ice cream van. I love that we are part of Europe. I love Devon and Cornwall. I love our charity days like Red Nose day and Children in need. I love the National Health Service. I love that we are a country that still cares for it’s sick and injured. I love that we are a nation of compassion and acceptance rather than distrust, dogmatic individualism and miserable hatred. I love great British comedians like the Pythons, and Spike Milligan and comedies like Blackadder and Only Fools. I love our sense of humour. I love our sarcasm. I love talking to random people on the park when i’m taking the dog for a run. I love our political music like The Clash and The Jam. I love London. I love bike rides around England. I love black cabs. I love that on one long road just outside of Brighton there is a church, a mosque, a synagogue and a gay bar a little further down, and no problems arise. I love that we have minimum wage. I love the BBC. I love how overly excited our papers get when Wimbledon begins. I love our poets like Wordsworth and Byron. I love that Darwin was English. I love traditional English breakfasts. I love that we do not care what our leaders’ religious beliefs are. I love random games of football on the park. I love our regional colloquialisms. I love the words of Shakespeare and Milton.

I highlighted “I love how we are a mash of cultural differences and historical struggles” because I think it raises an important point. We have never been a single culture, that is now being “eroded“. You cannot erode something that is not static. We have always been a mash of cultures constantly updating and changing. There have been times when those in control or those sporting racist and xenophobic views have tried to impose uniformity, but Britain is great because we have always rejected uniformity in that sense. I will give you an example.

For the majority of English history, since the year 0, this country has been Catholic. Our history, is Catholicism.
Before the 1530s, England was a Catholic nation. The Catholic church was a predominant feature of every community within England. It’s Latin mass, it’s imagery and it’s elaborate dressings along with it’s rituals and rites were what defined England. We weren’t really a nation state at all. We were a vassal of Rome, in all honesty. Given that our own King could not divorce without the permission of the Pope, suggests that ultimately, control lay with Rome. The English people liked it that way. That was England. That was our culture.

During the Reformation Parliaments of the 1530s, the preambles to the statutes written by Thomas Cromwell, try to rewrite this culture, to suit their own needs. The break from Rome and establishment of an English Church would have been massive. Within the space of three years during the 1530s, the entire English system of power, law, and the basis of community had changed beyond recognition. The Henrician church and the Roman Catholic Church were vastly different systems of control and belief.

According to historian Sir William Holdsworth:

“The preamble to the Statute of Appeals is remarkable.. because it manufactures history upon an unprecedented scale.”

Anyone who happened to disagree with the King’s god-given right above the Pope, to be “Supreme Head of the Church in England“, was swiftly and quite horrifically dealt with. It did not bother Henry or Cromwell or Cranmer or any of the other reformers within Court, that the vast majority of the English public, did not believe the King had power above that of the Pope. English culture, for over a millenium, put the Pope as their true ruler, and no one else. Catholicism, (which by the way, was brought to us by immigrants – the Romans, after Claudius invasion of the Country) was so ingrained in the minds of the public, that people like Thomas More were willing to die for their opposition to Cromwell’s reform, rather than betray their beliefs.

The preamble by Cromwell, to the Act of Supremacy of 1534 intriguingly tries to force opinion again, rewrites history, imposes the Act as objective truth (so much so that the accompanying Treason Act made it punishable by death to say the King was not Supreme head of the Church, or talk about the Pope being Head before him), and one wonders whether Cromwell would have gone this far, had the Pope granted Henry his divorce from Catherine in the first place:

“Albeit the king’s Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this realm in their convocations.”

I cannot express just how momentous a change this Reformation Parliament truly was. We were now completely cut off from the Church in Rome, and therefore, cut off from Europe in it’s entirety. Propaganda from the government of Henry made it an offence to be Catholic.

A little over fifteen years later, after Henry had backtracked a little, adding more confusion to what it meant to be English; his son Edward was a child, and only allowed to read books by Protestant writers. He grew up anti-Catholic. When the Duke of Northumberland became the defacto King whilst Edward was still too young, the first thing he did, was rid the council of anyone who still held even slightly Catholic views. After Edward died, Mary then tried to revert back to Catholicism and rejoin the jurisdiction of Rome. Elizabeth, after Mary, settled the dispute, and created a settlement that held mainly Protestant beliefs, but incorporated Catholic beliefs too, although the authority of the Pope was still denied.

The point of this, is that we have never been one single minded Nation. We have always been a mesh of different beliefs and forced uniformity. Catholics viewed Protestants with suspicion in the same way that those racists who claim to be pro-British now view Islam. Irrational fear. There is nothing English about it. We have always updated, and we have always been in a constant state of change, there is no single identity. English culture is created by it’s people, and it is changed and updated with every passing generation. The people can be Catholic, Pagan, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, Sikh, Black, White, Asian, Gay, Straight, fat or thin. It doesn’t matter. That is what makes Britain great, and it is the one thing I love most about this country.

Rome

As you stroll down the rather beautiful Via Del Circus Massimo, you are presented with churches on your left, and the Circus Maximus on your right with the ruins of the palaces of antiquity looming on the Palatine overhead. If you take a left at the end of the famous arena that is now simply a big field, you are on Via Dell’Area Massima di Ercole, and on your left is a large building that now houses theatre props and equipment. It stands as a rather ordinary building in the centre of the City. Not many people realise that underneath it, still stands an old Pagan temple built by the cult of Mithra around 200ad.

Much of what we see in Rome today, left over by the Roman era, is a teardrop in the ocean of what actually still exists underground. Since the end of the Roman Empire, their successors (the Byzantines among others) have preserved the old city of Rome and simply built on top of it. Vast Roman streets and slums have been preserved under ground. Archeologists predict that only 10% of the underground Rome has been found, which is incredibly exciting for those of us who have an interest in Roman history.

I have been to Rome twice. And whilst I haven’t yet been to cities like Milan or Venice or Paris, I cannot imagine any City being greater than Rome. You get the instantaneous feeling that you are standing in a truly eternal city. The epicentre of two great empires; Rome and Catholicism. It is a surreal feeling.

Sat at a little Italian cafe, with violinists playing in the centre of the complex, looking out at the architecture of Bernini at the Piazza Navona is quite honestly indescribable. Beauty and history are two very complementary subjects.

As you walk through the centre of the Roman World; the Forum, you get a feeling that you have been transported back through history. You start to feel that you are standing in the spot where Sulla struck fear as a much hated tyrant. Where Cicero would have stood. Where Caesar would have strolled arrogantly, proclaiming himself some sort of God. Where Octavian would have rode gallantly through the main area draped in robes and cheered through the streets by hundreds of thousands of supporters, having defeated Marc Antony and “saved” Rome. And later, where the people would have almost hero worshiped Claudius and Trajan and Hadrian. It is so seeped in history, it is almost like walking onto a film set because it doesn’t seem real.

The Catholic section of the City is just as amazing. I am always in two frames of mind about Catholic Rome. On the one hand, it is beautiful. The Sistine Chapel, the Raphael rooms, and the architecture again by Bernini among others, is simply stunning. It is unrivaled anywhere on the planet. The atmosphere as the sun sets behind St Peters is something I don’t think I will forget any time soon. However, the very foundation of the Catholic Church is built on oppression and quite horrendous violence. I cannot imagine Jesus would be proud of Catholicism, if he stood in the centre of St Peters square and viewed with astonishment the great wealth they have accumulated in his name.

The Trevi fountain is locked away in Trevi Square, a tightly boxed area surrounded by cafes filled with Italian businessmen on cell phones, and lovers surrounding the fountain itself having their memories recorded on camera. It lights up at night. The Baroque Architect Nicola Salvi is responsible for the fountain. Although his work mimics that of Bernini whose undertaking of the creation of the fountain died with him (as you can tell i’m quite the fan of Bernini) The fountain depicts the Roman god of the sea, Neptune on a chariot made of shells being pulled by two horses. The horses’ moods reflect the moods of the sea directed by Neptune. One is angry and abrasive, the other is calm and uninterested. Whilst built about two hundred years after the Renaissance period, the statue seems to adhere entirely to Renaissance architecture, ignoring the common Baroque use of Neptune as a servant to City state propaganda (see “Neptune offers the wealth of the sea to Venice” by Tiepolo for typical Baroque depictions of Neptune). When it comes to the Trevi Fountain, Neptune is always in control, as in Roman myth. The myth comes to life, when you stand in front of the fountain and visualise the statue as if it had come to life.

I cannot describe in words just how I feel when i’m in Rome. I owe it to my love of Roman and Catholic history. Words on a page in books on the subjects that I read, suddenly become reality when stood in the City itself. It is a wonderful feeling. I cannot recommend Rome enough.

GO!!!!!

Everything is God

Having spent the past two blog entries trying to explain why I do not subscribe to a God of organised religion, I thought i’d now make an argument for why I’m not an atheist in the sense that I cannot accept, unequivocally that a God does not or has never existed, on a philosophical level.

As explained in previous blogs, I reject Christianity on the basis that it attempts to explain the unexplainable. It has hijacked the idea of God for it’s own power and wealth needs. (Why would a God use a commandment up telling me to not worship false idols, instead of telling me, say, not to sexually abuse children? Is God jealous, or was it just a design on power by a few people three-four thousand years ago? I’m going to go with the latter) Christianity attempts to use simple language and human knowledge to justify something that is beyond simple language and human knowledge. It then attempts to set out rules and laws that run contrary to many of my own principles. For example, I reject being told that I must “love thy neighbour“. Love and acceptance cannot be willed or forced. Neither can belief in a God of Organised religion. I reject Catholicism because the very reason it is as powerful as it is, has nothing to do with it being ordained by the power of God, and everything to do with the largely ignored evils and atrocities it has committed over the past two thousand years. I reject Protestantism for much the same reason.
Christianity tends to contradict itself by suggesting on the one hand that by revealing certain “laws” set out by God, that the nature of God is therefore knowable by human kind. Yet, the God of Christianity is one of complete perfection whom transcends human understanding, which by definition, means he is unknowable in every way.

But rejecting Organised Religion in no way implies a rejection of the principle of God in its entirety.

The Benedictine Monk, Anselm, both impresses me and infuriates me. He infuriates me because he suggested that belief preceded reasoning, which is a cop-out for me. It can also be quite a dangerous idea. Reasoning should always precede belief when it comes to such important ideas that belong to such a powerful organisation like the Catholic Church. Belief without reasoning is at the very heart of the problems Catholicism has endured over the Centuries. The largely illiterate populations of European States during the 16th Century were content with belief without reasoning, and the 16th Century happened to be rife with religious war and struggle.
“Nor do I seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand.” Anselm’s idea of “belief” in the eleventh century was a far cry from our understanding. For Anselm, belief means to resign oneself completely to the obedience of God, and with that obedience will come understanding. This, at first glance, sounds quite loose and unreasoned. But on a deeper level, Anselm is clearly referring to a state of meditation. Meditation is used across the World, spanning Continents and cultures, religions and races. Even Atheists meditate, it helps us gain a better understanding of ourselves and our issues. So, perhaps Anselm is loosely suggesting that to know oneself, is to know God, and since we are all interconnected by matter, by time, by space, by emotional response, by language, therefore to know oneself is to know everything, to know the eternal, and so by definition, everything is God.

Anselm also impresses me with his ontological argument of perfection. Anselm suggests that we all have an understanding of “good” and of “beauty” and of “perfect”. Those understandings, we use to base compare everything in life to. To Anselm, the very height of “good” or “perfect” is God. There must be a perfect perfection. Perfection must have an end point by it’s very nature, and that perfection, is therefore called God, because there is nothing greater than perfection. Anselm argued that to imagine the perfect Good is one thing, but for it to exist in reality would be greater than it existing purely in his mind, therefore, God must exist. It’s a convincing argument. But then, does God also become the perfect imperfection? The perfect evil? And also, surely the greatest creator, would be one that could create the universe, but not actually exist himself? That would be the ultimate perfection. Me painting a great work of art would be amazing, but me not existing, and yet managing to create a great work of art, would be better. And so by that logic, God doesn’t exist. Right?

I would argue that we are debating the idea of God in very much the wrong way. We are trying to prove the existence of a Being much like ourselves; who can consciously communicate and direct from the comfort of his cloud in the sky. That he can listen to prayer and intervene in the World. I think that’s wrong. I blame Organised Religion for that.
I think the idea of God needs to change. To have created a universe out of nothing suggests a creator that we give human attributes too. But, creating out of nothing, means that “nothing” is separate from God, and so that puts humanity at a great distance from God. We are not a part of God, God is not a part of us. Just as if we create a clock, we cannot suddenly become a part of that clock, and direct that clock to be whatever we so wish. But even if a God did create the universe ex nihilo, then, we must ask, who created the creator? If we take the Organised Religion route, we must say that before existence there must have a been non-existence. Which means God must have jumped into existence, at the moment of creation, unless he existed in non-existence, and if he did indeed exist in non-existence (a state in which nothing exists) then by definition, he didn’t exist. So, in order to change from a state of non-existence into a state of existence, something must have started his existence, which means there is something greater than the creator of everything, because something created the creator primarily. Still with me?

But, going with Anselm’s theory, the greatest perfection, in my rather skewed subjective analysis of the situation, would be a Being that could exist when existence itself does not exist. Does this prove the existence of God? No, but it is a far better argument than the one given by most Christians….. “God exists, because the Bible says so”.

What if the universe had no beginning? What if the big bang was simply one in an endless line of big bangs? What if there was no Aristotelian Prime Mover, because there was no need for a Prime Mover? We slowly come to the conclusion, that existence itself is bound together. We are all part of the same conclusion. Matter, energy, time, wisdom, and space, are all interconnected. Which, I think Thomas Aquinas was suggesting, when he noted that God is the immutable, God is the perfection, and God is the infinite. He wasn’t suggesting there is a man in the sky who has all the makings that we traditionally associate with a God of Organised Religion. When he spoke of the nature of Jesus, he wasn’t suggesting that a God one day decided to put his son on Earth. He was suggesting that the “son of God” was simply the result of the hard and desperate times. Humanity created Jesus. In the same way that every generation has a person stand up against the natural order; that person would not have the same influence if the natural order was perfectly acceptable. Therefore, Jesus was simply a man who stood up against the accepted Roman order. The son of God, simply means, the son of everything. It was inevitable, for Aquinas, that eventually a man would want to fight back against Roman powers. Aquinas, the great Philosophy of Christian tradition, was suggesting that because everything is interconnected to everything else, therefore everything is God.

Il Bacio

We can live without religion and meditation, but we cannot survive without human affection.
- HH The Dalai Lama

Hanging above my bed is a wide lens poster called “Il Bacio, Venezia, Italia“, which translates to “The Kiss, Venice, Italy“. It struck me as particularly beautiful, in that it captures a moment of perpetual romantic bliss, that seems a World away from where I’m from. Much like Parisian Photographer, Robert Doisneau’s photographs of loved-up couples and passionate moments, I do not know who the two lovers embracing in the centre of the picture are, and that (to me) is irrelevant. Their names and their ages and their birthplaces and everything else that makes up who they are, is unimportant. The subject of the photo, is the beauty of the kiss. The moment itself, must have been fleeting, a second or two, but it has been immortalised on film. Her leg cropped back, as if she has completely submitted herself to the moment. He, wearing black, she wearing white, their arms linked created the image in my head, of the YinYang of Taoist fame; two opposing entities that are forever together and unable to exist without each other. Hot, cold. Day, night. Male, female. Him, her. It exists everywhere. The Trevi Fountain in day is covered in tourists, and businessmen on phones, taking pictures, missing the point of the beauty and sense the fountain is supposed to create. The Trevi Fountain at night is splashed in golden lights, enjoyed by a handful of couples enjoying each others company, and rose sellers completing the experience. Here where I live, that same time of night, around our City centre fountain is either home to a boyfriend holding his girlfriend’s hair back whilst she vomits, or a drunken fight, opposite Maryland Chicken (which is the worst chicken place in the history of life, by the way). The YinYang affect.

The location of the picture; Venice, is also significant. Like Paris, or Rome, or Milan, or Monaco… Venice has a certain intrinsic Continental romance and beauty about it, that seems somewhat elusive to Britain. And like the YinYang… whilst I see in “Il Bacio” an almost film-like fleeting romantic European moment, I must have a sense of the opposite, in order to find it so appealing.

Having just started my Degree, at almost 24 years old, is a rather eye opening experience. I’m studying, because I want to study, I want to learn, rather than satisfying a parents expectation, or because I feel pushed into it. School always felt like I was being taught subjects I had no real interest in, and so I just didn’t care. It’s different now.

On a social level, it’s also different. I have no desire to be out nightly making sure my liver is pushed to the test. I’m very much an introvert as it is, and so a good film and some friendly company is more than enough to make me smile. I seriously can’t keep up in clubs now. I feel like an old man after a couple of hours….. I want to say “Can someone turn that shit down please?” whilst making myself a cup of tea. I’m convinced that the most depressing phrase in the English language, is “Are you coming out tonight? some guy from X Factor is at Zanzibar!!!“.

Similarly, the University life style includes a certain level of promiscuity that as an 18 year old, attracted me like a moth to a flame. Different girls, with quickly forgotten names and faces, to make the nights roll by. That was the seductive nature (from where I come from, anyway) of University. We hated school. Why would we want three more years of it, without the mellifluous promise of evening entertainment.

Being older, and at University, has changed my perspective more than I ever thought it would. The idea of meaningless encounters, having been there and done that, speaks very little to me all of a sudden. Not in the sense that I suddenly look down on that sort of thing. I don’t. My philosophy on sex, has always been……. as long as it’s not hurting anyone, go for it! I certainly will never resort to insulting someone, just because they enjoy casual encounters. It is just that my own personal preference changed quite significantly recently, which has worked only to confuse me magnificently. I worked out that my own slightly promiscuous past was the result of my horrendous desire to feel wanted. I have spent the past six months going on date, after date in an attempt to figure out what it is I want. And i’m only human, I have my flaws and my insecurities. One of which, as already mentioned, is my need to feel wanted. Which, I accept is disastrously arrogant of me. But, on a deeper level, feeling wanted does not just resign itself to intimate encounters with nameless blonde haired brown haired black haired blue eyed green eyed tall short thin fat women from nowhere and everywhere, it’s a need to feel that as I person, my existence is not completely pointless, or absurd (blame Camus and Sartre for my assumptions on absurdity).

I do miss having someone to talk about my day with, or to cook with. I miss affection. I miss the feeling of not remembering how life existed without that person. I miss watching a film together, or becoming addicted to a TV show with or play fighting with. I miss planning holidays together. I miss spending weeks before her birthday trying to figure out what she wants and panicking right up until the last minute that she might not like it. I miss it all, especially the bond which certainly doesn’t exist with one nighters. But, in the search for that lasting feeling again, the tendency to let my guard down has crept in, which has never happened before. I discovered in the past couple of months, that I have a fickle heart, in that a simple smile from a beautiful girl gleamed in my direction, has the ability to make me think I’m in some sort of romantic comedy in which we’re going to end up happily married together by the end of the movie.

My great worry is that I that I’ll end up just settling for the first person who shows interest. I do not want to end up like the couple who don’t trust each other. Or the couple who ban each other from talking to exes. Or the couple who claim to love each other within a few days of getting together. It is extraordinarily rare that I meet a couple who appear to actually belong together, often my instant reaction in my mind is quite pessimistically: “they wont last long“. This feeling of rarity affects my own life. It’s incredibly rare for me to see someone, and smile simply because they’re there. I’m constantly dating people I know just don’t suit me, or maybe it’s my fussy nature finding flaws. Either way, when someone comes along who appears to suit me, I find it relatively incredulous, am taken aback, and not sure how to act. And whilst i’m normally confident (seriously, I love me!) I tend to go quiet in the knowledge that if I say very little, there is very little chance of saying something stupid; although often this backfires and the very little I do say, ends up making the voice in my head tell me “yeah, you probably should have just said nothing….moron!”.

Letting the guard down, and maybe becoming far more attached to someone than I might have hoped, is not necessarily a bad thing. If things don’t turn out how I would have liked, rather than cry, or listen to depressing music about lost loves, I choose to learn from it and move on, making sure I don’t make the same mistake again. But, it’s new to me. It’s rather peculiar and impalpable to me, and yet oddly desirable.

Whether we’re the guarded alpha-male type, or in tune with our emotional desires, we are not all that different. We all desire to be loved. I challenge anyone to see “Il Bacio” and not feel slightly envious.

The rules of Marriage

It is rather ironic that anti-gay marriage proponent, and self named “defender of Traditional Marriage” in California, Doug Manchester is getting divorced. Almost poetic. Perhaps if Mr Manchester had spent less time funding anti-gay movements, less time stealing $9.3million from the joint account of him and his wife of 43 years, and more time trying to save his traditional marriage, this essence we know as Karma wouldn’t have made him a bit of a public laughing stock.

Mr Manchester told the New York Times in July 2008, that he was funding Prop 8, because; “my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church leads me to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.” I hope I can count on Manchester’s money to help me fund an initiative designed to ban divorce… because the Catholic Church doesn’t look too kindly at that particular subject.

The word “traditional” in the horribly right winged mantra; “traditional marriage” is almost ironic in itself. In the same way that American’s tend to call tall people “shorty“. Whilst marriage certainly has been a case of man and woman throughout history (mainly because society had not evolved to the stage where homosexuality was acceptable, and that punishment for homosexuality was considered perfectly legitimate, yet for some odd reason all Christians, even Mr Manchester would agree we’ve evolved enough as a society to ignore other sections of Biblical “traditions“, such as Exodus 21:7 – “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do“), it has no traditional precedent in the slightest.

Take Biblical marriage for example. If the homophobes among us are going to chant the boring, unoriginal, ridiculous mantra of “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” (God also made Eve out of Adam’s rib. So when you’re finished attacking Gay people, why not surgically remove your own rib, and try to raise it into a Female, go on, try it!) then they also have to, by their very own logic, point out that Exodus 21:10 states “If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights“…… So, traditional marriage, in the very earliest sense, the very essence of what marriage traditionally meant, was that you can marry as many women as you like, as long as you look after the first wife.

Now, if we skip forward to the New Testament, we see; Matthew 22:23-32, which paraphrases Deuteronomy 25:5, with; “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him“
Traditional Marriage is becoming a little bit complicated. It certainly isn’t a romantic union of pure Love between a man and a woman. It can be apparently between a man and many women, a man and his brother’s widow, or if you’re King David – anyone you quite like the look of on that particular day.

Roman marriage was not much filled with love and romance either. Roman women were expected to marry, purely to produce a son, and purely because the wealth of the girl, when married, moved entirely to the husband, who would use it as political capital. The ceremony itself did not involve mother-in-laws crying at how happy their Daughter looked, or the kissing of the bride, or the romantic glance into each others eyes. Instead, it consisted of the two households signing into agreements about property and wealth, and the agreement from the new wife that she would provide children, pretty much on demand. If a wife failed to produce male offspring, the male would often divorce her and just move on to another woman in the hope of producing a male.

Skip even further, to Renaissance Europe, and England in particular, we are presented with the death of King Henry Tudor, and the crowning of his second son (Prince Arthur, originally supposed to succeed his father, died young), the 17 year old King Henry VIII. Henry’s new bride, and the widow of Arthur (sticking with tradition so far!) Catherine was the daughter of the recently formed Spain (the marriage between Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile) and so a powerful Princess. The marriage between Arthur, and then Henry, and Catherine was one designed purely to create an ally out of England and Spain in the face of a powerful enemy in France. Henry soon became overly bored with Catherine, given that she failed to produce any living sons to succeed Henry. She gave him a daughter, the future Queen Mary, and Henry wanted a son. He became convinced that he was cursed to have no sons, and that God did not appreciate him marrying his Brother’s widow (clearly the contradictions of the Bible confused him). It was always going to be difficult to get a marriage annulment from the Pope, given that the Pope was now under the control of The Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, who just happened to be Catherine’s nephew. This in turn, lead to Henry deciding he didn’t need the Pope’s permission, and so broke from Rome, which set the ball rolling for what he now know as the Protestant Reformation – cemented fully, during the reigns of Henry’s only son King Edward, and his daughter Queen Elizabeth – the very reason us Brits aren’t some mindless Catholic drones. Meanwhile, Catherine, was simply banished from Court. And the subsequent marriages of Henry, were all designed purely for the creation of a male heir. Marriage in Tudor England, Renaissance Europe, and in fact, the preceding centuries had absolutely nothing to do with love, nor was it anything like it is today. Marriage was reasons of power and wealth, the joining of two strong families with visions of grandeur. It is the reason Henry’s father, Henry Tudor married the niece of Henry’s enemy, Richard III. It cemented the Tudor dynasty beautifully. Marriage in the proceeding centuries following the Tudor’s comes directly from our 16th Century King, marrying six times, executing two, and divorcing two, all for the sake of a male heir.

A couple of centuries later, and America has just elected it’s first President. George Washington at the helm of perhaps the most impressive Government in American History. John Adams as Vice President. Alexander Hamilton at the Treasury. John Jay as Chief Justice. And most importantly to this blog, Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State. Jefferson is possibly one of the most contradictory characters in American history. He promotes small government, wont actually shut up about the joys of small government and how destructive large government is….. and yet it is Jefferson who expands government the most when he becomes America’s 3rd President. Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, writing that “all men are created equal” yet, he owns many slaves. When Jefferson’s wife died, it is widely assumed that he had a long affair with a slave in his possession, Sally Hemings, whom he does not free, but instead, has sex with. His own personal sex slave. She then has children, which DNA testing has supported the notion that all six of them, were Jefferson’s. The four surviving children, also become his slaves until the age of 21 (two ran away). A man has needs!!!! Jefferson refused to marry Hemings, stating of mixed race marriages; “The amalgamation of whites with blacks produces a degradation to which no lover of his country, no lover of excellence in the human character, can innocently consent“. So, marriage between blacks and whites during the 18th Century, it would seem was just as sneered upon by the elites, as gay marriage is today. Jefferson, was the 18th Century’s version of Doug Manchester when it comes to marriage.

In fact, it was only in 1967 that the U.S Supreme Court announced it’s decision in the case of Loving v. Virginia, that Anti-Miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.

Marriage has been a subject that has no formal tradition. It isn’t something that has been set in stone since the Biblical era. In fact, it doesn’t resemble Biblical or even early Christian traditions in any way shape or form. It has been used for wealth, prestige, political gain, property, and power, producing of children, much much more than anything to do with a sense of love and unity. Marriage, like society, evolves. We exist at a time when the next stage in the evolution of Marriage is occurring, and whilst 16th Century Europe struggled to come to terms with a major stage in Marriage evolution, with what it meant for a King to proclaim himself more important than the Church when it comes to the institution of Marriage itself, I’d suggest that in today’s World, society in general has evolved to a much more sensible and reasonable level to be able to accept changes, like the inclusion of homosexual couples, without taking opposition to the extreme.

If we are to cite obscure passages in the Bible, to state our case against certain subjects, then we must also cite the Bible to state our case against accepted norms. I’m sure I can count on Mr Manchester’s support when I start selling my children into Slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7-11.

Go team Jamie!

When you’re endlessly struggling to understand yourself, or your purpose, you eventually just start to give up placing yourself. Luckily, I’m not quite at that stage. I’m still searching for a reason to be. Perhaps purpose is the wrong word; as argued in a separate blog a while back, I’m pretty certain there is no such reality as “purpose“, it is simply a man made concept designed to keep our minds focused on something that doesn’t involve any form of rebellion. So perhaps purpose doesn’t suit me, perhaps “different” suits me.

With this in mind, I’ve been mapping out each road in my distinctly annoying mind, and deciding which of those possibly roads is likely to cause the greatest incalculable source of happiness on my inner hedonistic calculus, if I were to take that specific road. At first, I thought of a month around Europe; hostels, new people, new places, on my own with no one else to worry about. Then, came the idea of a Far East week. A week exploring the seemingly perfect and tranquil setting of Halong Bay in North East Vietnam; a different World to the one I’m struggling to understand here in England. The Communist Revolutionary Ho Chi Minh once said of Halong Bay; “It is the wonder that one cannot impart to others“. And whilst I’d give my right arm to spend a week within a wonder that “one cannot impart to others“, it would only be a holiday, it would offer nothing of substance, and spiritually, would appear to be slightly pointless.

So, I’m currently saving every last penny of my punitive income to do what I should have done years ago; Volunteer work abroad. gapyearforgrownups.co.uk offers some magnificent opportunities. From orphanage volunteering, to natural conservation work. There is something for everyone. Costs are the problem. The program I’m currently considering deeper than the others, is called the “Tanzania Reach Out to Children” project, in which volunteers help with the education and development of Tanzania’s orphaned and disadvantaged children. Nursery and day care centres, and primary to secondary education. A four week program, costs £879. That price doesn’t include flights or travel insurance or the £115 Class C Permit Visa, or the £25 tourist visa. Costs start mounting. Flights to Dar es Salaam from Birmingham, come in at £650 at least. It’s a hugely costly program, but I’m certain I can do it. It’s almost a dream job, because it involves helping those who need it most, and so is satisfying by definition; as opposed to making money for the pretentious rich ignorant self important idiots in suits that I usually waste my time demoralised for. This, is the only rewarding aspect of life I can possibly think worthy of my time and effort.

So, this is my new goal! I feel ridiculously better about myself today, for even having a goal. But then (and here’s that little annoying mad man in the back of my mind again, Sylvia Plath’s mirror haunting me constantly), surely my motives are all wrong? Surely my motive is self gratification and a need to create a sense of spiritual bliss, rather than a genuine need to help those who require assistance the most, even though I do feel and always have felt a distinct sympathy for the less fortunate peoples of the World (hence why I’d never bring myself to vote Conservative). It’s a tricky predicament. Do motives even matter, if someone who needs help is being helped? Hmmm. Either way, this is my new goal, and I’m going to do it. I have decided that when I do it, I will take my camera, and document it, as my own personal Photography side project, because I’ve given up recently on my Photography, and I really should start up again. This, is the perfect opportunity. I intend to show, through my Photographs, that despite the claims of the ridiculous Right Wing, humanity is not intrinsically selfish, and that the forgotten regions of the World need all the support they can get. It’s an idea I’ll keep thinking about and evolving, as time goes on. Especially as I’m embarking on a Journalism degree this coming September. It all makes perfect sense.

Go team Jamie!

Books books books

Whilst Whitehall implodes, I will lay off writing a blog detailing the events of the past seventy-two hours; the Cabinet resignations, the sexism allegations, the Alastair Darling situation, the Council Elections; because anything could happen in the next twenty four, and i’d rather wait to see how this story progresses.

So instead of my usual political opinionated articles, you get a round up of the books I’m currently reading, because I really don’t have all that much to write about today. My political mind is focused on the rapid disintegration of the Government. When i’m not concentrating on political situations here and across the ocean in the U.S, I’m reading.

The first book I’m currently reading, is Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes. My interest in Catholic history has developed somewhat recently. Specifically, the early Catholic Church. What Eamon Duffy, the Author manages to do, as a Catholic himself, is to appeal to both a religious audience and a secular audience, by effectively telling a story without bias toward the stories and the myths. I was unaware of just how at odds the different early Christian sects of Rome and elsewhere actually were, the vying for power, the sometimes vehemently opposed Gospel interpretations. This book expresses those differences clearly and and in simple terms. It is of course, only one book, covering two thousand years of Papal history, and so it is vague in many places. A simple introduction to the legend of the Papacy from the early Christian meetings featuring St Peter to the election of Benedict XVI. Highly recommended. I look forward to the chapter on Julius II

Speaking of Pope Julius II, the second book I have here to read, is Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel. Having stood inside the Sistine Chapel, in awe at the masterpiece that one human being has created, and the subsequent feeling you get when stood in a place seeped in history, it is only natural for me to want to uncover the myths and the messages buried within the art work itself. Andrew Graham-Dixon, the author shocked me quite early on, by suggesting that there is no evidence whatsoever that Michelangelo was homosexual. I’ve always been persuaded to believe he was gay. Due entirely to masculine figures he created doused in feminine attributes. The wealthy banker Messer Jacopo Galli commissioned Michelangelo to sculpt the Roman God of Wine, Bachus. The finished product is indeed a male, yet of very feminine nature. This, along with other Michelangelo works, and his obvious appreciation for the male form, suggested he was indeed gay. And so it is nice to see a different interpretation of an unsure history.
The art within the Sistine Chapel itself is quite obviously a work of genius, even more so when, like I have, you’ve visited it. The depiction of the creation of Adam is so familiar throughout the World, it doesn’t speak out to us, until you’ve stood directly underneath it, and suddenly the power of the image becomes magnificently evident. You get the overwhelming sense of history, the Popes that have been elected within that room, the fact that the room itself played host to the four years Michelangelo spent painting so beautifully a work of art that demands understanding, 500 years later.

I have already read this book once before, but the subject fascinates me perhaps more than any other subject has ever fascinated me before, and given that i’m seemingly unable to draw my full attention to one subject for more than a month at a time, it should indeed impress you that I’ve been a loyal fan of Roman History for at least four years now. The Book, From the Gracchi to Nero is possibly the most informative and entertaining book I’ve read on the subject of Rome. The author, H.H. Scullard has successfully and scrupulously created a narrative that reads like a work of fiction, a thriller, rather than a simple walk-through of the years between 133BC and 68AD. The book not only covers the obvious centres of power within the Senate and the later Emperors, it covers the economy, the Mithridatic wars, foreign affairs, the importance of Italian agriculture, among others. The book could quite possibly be my most cherished book at the moment.

So those happen to be the three books I’m reading recently. I would recommend all three to anyone interested in the history of Western Civilisation and religion, as I am. To the rest of you, I deeply apologise for wasting the last five minutes of your life.

Senatus Populusque Americanus

It would be naive to think that on the surface, the United States model is entirely original and without precedent. From the architecture of the Government buildings, to the idolising of it’s founders, the influence of the Roman Republic can be seen throughout American politics. From it’s conception in the late 18th Century, America has retained much of it’s Roman influence. John Adams modelled his own style of writing on the great Roman Orator Cicero, often quoting him. Adams viewed Cicero’s political decline, as a mirror image of his own. Madison, Jay, and Hamilton – Romulus and Remus’ American counterparts – wrote a collection of 85 essays promoting the new U.S Constitution, they signed it using the allonym, “Publius” after Publius Valerius Publicola, the joint first Consul of the newly found Roman Republic, in 509bc. The Plebian Council of Rome acted as an dubiously elected House of Representatives, the Tribune could propose legislation and call the Senate, a Speaker of the House, if you will. The Roman Senate, acted almost as a supremely powerful Senate, filled with members of rich families (The US Senate, in 2003, was found to have 40 millionaires). The business class of the day, the Equites, grew ever more rich and politically influential as the territories and provinces increased (similar to the advancement of Oil opportunities with the “liberation” of Iraq). Whilst the Tribunes did indeed work in favour of the public (Tiberius Gracchus for example), the shadowy Equites influenced policy from behind the curtains.

Split powers, term limits, the veto, and the Senate itself are all aspects borrowed from America’s imperial predecessor. Of course there are substantial differences between the two (party politics isn’t particularly Roman, the two consuls of the Senate was not adopted in America), which is more down to the problems facing the founders in 1776, their need to create something different, something that broke away from previous English rule, but did not emulate to the core, the failings of previous Republican systems, such as the Republic of Rome. The Roman system was, after all, original and so had many, many flaws. Ultimately, the Roman Republican, the principle of the SPQR on which it stood, crumbled into Empire, because the Republican system of checks and balances just could not cope with such a widespread Empire.

The importance and the Patriotism of belonging to a particular National identity, the largely insular attitudes, their belief in the Republic, their military might, and their insistence that their way is superior and so should be spread across the World, their international cultural influence; all are derived from Rome, and passed on to it’s successor, a contemporary Renaissance, if you will, the United States of America.

There is one less obvious claim America has to be the new Rome.
Stoic Philosopher Panaetius left Athens and headed for Rome, with his new powerful friend; Roman Consul Scipio around 138BC. Earlier Stoics and Romans had decided long ago, that true Virtue came from knowledge, and so only the wisest of men could be considered virtuous in the eyes of the Gods. Panaetius introduced a new idea into the Roman every day life. He would offer help and teachings to those people who requested a life of virtue, he would provide the knowledge needed, he would be the way. And so suddenly, the idea that anyone could potentially become a supremely virtuous human being, in the eyes of the Gods, gave Politicians who sought advice from the teachings of Panaetius, a divine purpose for their serving in Rome. They would insist that the God’s had empowered them, which ultimately gave them much control over the public. This, directly influenced the notion a century later, that Caesar had a divine calling to “save” the Republic. Cicero drew heavily on the teachings of Panaetius. Suddenly individual “virtue” in the eyes of the population, became more important than the protection of the Republic.

In 2005, George Bush claimed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the disastrous wars in which thousands upon thousands of innocents have died, was a “calling from God“. He is quoted as saying “I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did.” A grotesque manipulation of the emotions of Christendom in it’s entirety. Those soldiers, those innocent Iraqi’s appear to have died for a reason none of us are aware of. Perhaps a lavish extension of Western Oil investment opportunities, perhaps the need to revert Iraq back to trading Oil in U.S Dollars. Certainly not a “war on terror“, certainly not a vengeful attack for the horror of 9/11. They died, because Bush thinks he’s ordained by God? The idea that the most powerful man on the Planet, turned the Republican White House into a Theocratic mess, by claiming he felt he had a calling from the mythical God of the Christian faith to destroy a Nation, is no different to Julius Caesar embarking on a mission from the Gods of Antiquity, to “save the Republic“.

Ex-White House Press Secretary, under Lyndon Johnson, Bill Moyer said:
“What is unique today is that the radical religious right has succeeded in taking over one of America’s great political parties. The country is not yet a theocracy but the Republican Party is, and they are driving American politics, using God as a battering ram on almost every issue: crime and punishment, foreign policy, health care, taxation, energy, regulation, social services and so on.“

Suddenly, politicians of a particular persuasion, simply because they consider themselves Christians, have decided that morality comes directly from their apparent virtuous Godly knowledge, and that the rest of us just aren’t privy to their misguided “wisdom“. They try to discredit the faith of opponent politicians, purely for their own political ends. They embarrass themselves and then say “Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God“, which translates to “I forgave myself, and that’s all that matters“. Republican Congressman Trent Franks, whilst trying to justify torture, starts with a quite depressingly inaccurate claim that “America’s distinguishing hallmark, its bedrock foundation, is that we hold to the self-evident truth that all men are created by God”.
Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice Scalia, is quoted as saying “..Government…derives its moral authority from God.“.
The Anti-Abortion lobby use phrases like “We will not stop until this nation once again honors God—or we die trying“, Theocracy by any means necessary? Why do you need to include an unprovable God in your argument?

The concept that as a politician, you are doing the work of God, or that your playing a part ordained by God, is an incredibly powerful concept. The race for the Minnesota Senate seat between Republican candidate Norm Coleman and Democrat candidate Al Franken, took a turn to the Religious Right, when Coleman stated “God wants me to serve“, as if to suggest a vote for Franken, would be a vote against God.
Gary Mcleod, running for House of Representative seat against Jim Clyburn, in South Carolina’s Sixth Congressional District, writes on his home page “Socialism is immoral because it requires the violation of God-given property rights“. A horribly manipulation of Biblical principles to support Political gain.
Rumsfeld would send memo’s around, regarding the ongoing war in Iraq, filled with Biblical Quotes.
It is an incredibly manipulative environment, to bring Religion into the political landscape. It shouldn’t happen. One disgruntled blogger writing on the Huffington Post site, suggests that the Republicans just cut out their religious dogmatic nonsense, and run God for President.

The use of Religious propaganda and manipulation was utter nonsense during the height of the Roman Empire, it similarly possesses the same utter nonsensical “qualities” during the height of the American empire. The influence of the fallen Rome, is far more widespread than may seem on the surface.

I don’t want American freedom.

As a rule, the Roman Empire did not respond too kindly to criticism. They believed they were the most civilised and forward thinking Nation on the planet. Everyone else, they considered to be far inferior to themselves. Any sort of criticism hurled their way resulted in swift attack. The Christians for example bore the brunt of the might of Rome (according to Tacitus) when Emperor Nero managed to gain enough popular support to blame the anti-Roman Christians for the 64AD fire of Rome…. and so the Christians were quite brutally punished. Rome could not handle criticism. Truth had become a threat.

Whilst I was sat, drinking a finely made cup of England’s finest tea, I turned to channel 509 – Fox News.
A man with a mind-numbingly boring voice on Fox News, attacked Obama for not “standing up for America” and that “Obama didn’t stand up for freedom” when he met with Hugo Chavez recently. I listened tentatively, hoping that Fox would enlighten me as to when America ever stood up for freedom?

America is not on the side of World freedom. It’s a very odd claim to make. It appears only the American right wing still hold that assumption close to their rose tinted hearts. America is on the side of whatever works for America. America decides what is best for your Nation, based entirely on how you benefit America economically. If you don’t, you’ll be labelled evil.
The ridiculously narrow minded and diseased statements from Fox, attacking President Obama increased in spectacular fashion for the next few minutes:

“The American position is to help Cuba and the Americas rid their people of communist dictatorships that forced themselves on the country fifty years ago…… Obama didn’t say that, does this man’s narcassicism know no bounds?”

Let’s not forget that America supported the pre-Castro regime of Fulgencio Batista after he and his military associates took control of Cuba in ’52. Batista called off all elections and suspended the Cuban constitution, creating a dictatorship. Now, usually the USA would have something to say about that, but no, it was a Right Winged dictatorship and it benefitted American trade, so Eisenhower and Truman both recognised Batista’s authority. Freedom is only freedom when it suits America.
The reason America didn’t appear to have a problem with Batista’s dictatorship, is the regime in 1952 gave out contracts to several U.S Corporations for train lines, a power network, highways and an airport. The Cuban people did not concern America, their freedom, did not concern America. The only thing that concerned America, was and still is…. money. Outside of Havana, the poor were under the worst conditions ever known in Cuba, the literacy rate was appalling and health care extended to the rich only. But that’s okay, because America was benefiting economically. America owned a quarter of bank deposits in Cuba by 1958. 90% of Electric Services and the Telephone Services were American. So of course it didn’t matter that Batista was killing off political rivals, calling off all elections, torturing, being pictured with mafia associates and acting like a Right Winged version of Stalin…. because it benefited America economically.

Not only that, but America supplied the Batista regime with arms and napalm to kill off the Castro faction a few years later. After the USA forced Cuba to go to the polls, in 1954, Batista won. Vice President Nixon went over to congratulate Batista on his victory….. choosing to ignore that Batista was the only candidate.

So I fear Fox are once again being a little bit hypocritical when they seem to profess just how wonderful the U.S has been with Cuba. Castro didn’t “force himself” on the Country. If Obama were to abandon the US Constitution and call off all future elections, I figure Fox would go out of their way to provide support to a rebel army.

It suited America to support the Taliban once. Freedom and human rights, didn’t appear to matter. It suited America to support General Pinochet in Chile once (for all the complaining John McCain does about sitting down without preconditions with dictators, he has no problem visiting General Pinochet in 1985, for what he later described as “warm and friendly”) Freedom and human rights didn’t apppear to matter. It suited America to support Saddam once. Freedom and human rights didn’t appear to matter. In fact, at the height of Saddam’s tyranny and murderous rampage, it was America who were supplying the weapons and the funding to make such tyranny possible. Saddam wasn’t given a fair trial, because if he had been given that freedom, he would have had a field day describing the help and the encouragement given by the Reagan and Bush administrations. Both of which, should have gone on trial too. In fact, half the Presidents ever to occupy the White House, by their own logic, should go on trial for crimes against humanity. But of course America got their own back by destroying half of that Country…. because it suited American interests. When it suits America economically in the 1980s, they’ll help you. When it suits America economically in the 00s, they’ll utterly destroy you. That’ll teach you to stop trading oil in US Dollars. But hey, that’s the price we all pay for this odd brand of “Freedom” America seems to be trying to sell us all.

Fox do not appear to accept any criticism hurled at America, unless it’s hurled at the Left wing. For example, today they spent at least twenty wasteful minutes on the fact that Chavez presented Obama with a book by Eduardo Galeano, entitled “Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent” which has “anti-American sentiment” written deep into it’s core. It’s like a dad who beats his child complaining when his child writes a book about the abuse he suffered. I realise Fox want to rewrite history in which America is the freedom loving, peaceful angels of the World, but that simply wouldn’t be true. However, the moment French President Nicolas Sarkozy decided to verbally attack President Obama, Fox suddenly fell in love with the French.

President Obama seems humble. He appears to recognise that America has been a bit of a shit over the past century, and that when Fox and Republicans refuse to acknowledge just how disgraceful America has acted, it strikes me as ignorant and cowardly. The World, for a very long time has recognised that the USA is not the beacon for hope and freedom that it’s right wing claims to be. It’s a selfish Nation whose economic interests far outweigh the interests of freedom and human rights. Death tolls have never bothered America if it means advancement in business ties. The sanctions placed on Cuba have nothing to do with trying to help the people of Cuba resist Communism. The sanctions on Cuba have nothing to do with anything other than the economic growth of American business. Obama is doing the right thing. America is still horribly blinded by it’s obsession with it’s own unique, perverted form of “Freedom”. The freedom that is equivilant to me punching a man in his face, taking his money, and then spending it on my family.

It’s wonderful to see such deep hypocrisy and ignorance alive and well in the American Right Wing. Right now Fox came back from it’s commercial break, to the sentence “Is this the end of freedom of speech?” (this, two hours after telling us all what Obama SHOULD be saying, how ironic), discussing why Obama is trying to control the internet, wants to kill off the first amendment and might want to run for three terms. It’s the single most ridiculous channel ever made. And i’m including “GODtv” in that.

Hugo Chavez described America in 2005, as the “most savage, cruel and murderous empire that has existed in the history of the world.”
Hard to argue with that.

The Paradox of America

The issue facing the Founding Fathers during the period 1787-1788, was the framing of the Constitution and how they would justify the problem of slavery. How could they reconcile the 1776 Declaration of Independence, with the need for a new Constitution based on their ideals of freedom from imposed rule, when they themselves were imposing rule over others?
Clearly, even back then, Slavery proved to go against everything the Revolution stood for. The Revolution itself can be referred to quite rightly as the Freedom Revolution. The Founding Fathers, Jefferson, Adams, Burr, Franklin, Hamilton, Madison and Washington are perhaps the most important and greatest political figures since Cicero, Caesar, Octavian and later Trajan. But that very issue of slavery which had no affect on the hearts of the citizens of the Roman Republic, would have a considerable affect on the brand new American Republic, purely because if ignored, it would suggest America was born on a gigantic contradiction, of epic proportions. Maybe so. But without that contradiction, and because slavery was so instrumental in the lives of the ordinary man pre-Revolution in America, the question of whether or not America could survive without it, was immeasurable.
America was of course built on contradiction. Built on paradox. The 55 delegates, often known as the framers of the Constitution constantly argued about how best to word it. Jefferson and Hamilton were the equivilant today of Liberal and Conservative. But they managed to frame arguably the greatest document of modern history, despite their differences. And America was born.

(Please excuse my simplistic overview of the American Revolution and framing of the Constitution, i’m young, and i’m from England, and haven’t been exposed to American history all that much, other than what i’ve taught myself from books. So excuse the simplicity.)

“In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis” – President Obama.

It strikes me as ridiculous that the very notion of big bankers and business owners who have been on the receiving end of bail out funds – tax payers money, should be allowed to do whatever they want with it. It strikes me as utterly inconceivable that they appear to try to justify six figure salaries despite destroying the economy. They should be in prison if anything.
It should absolute disgust us all, that the CEOs of Chrysler, GM, and Ford have the nerve to ask for $25bn yet will fly home in their own private jets. Those of us who keep the topic of social injustice at the front of our minds, who know people die every day because they cannot get the food they so desperately need, stand united in our absolute outrage at these disgusting, greedy human beings.

Obama, quite rightfully put a stop to it, by capping the wages of CEOs at $500,000.
Obama, The President, yesterday is quoted as saying…
“This is America. We don’t disparage wealth. We don’t begrudge anybody for achieving success. And we believe that success should be rewarded. But what gets people upset – and rightfully so – are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers. “
Thankfully, some Republicans have actually supported the cap on CEO wages. Richard Shelby, on the Senate Banking Committee, and Senator for Alabama, said quite rightfully: “In ordinary situations where the taxpayers money is not involved, we shouldn’t set executive pay, But where you’ve got federal money involved, taxpayers’ money involved, TARP money involved, and the way they have spent it, with no accountability, is getting close to being criminal.” He’s correct, in many ways. It’s a pity those blinded by the aspect of competition in the marketplace do not have the same outlook. Those such as “Clarence” commenting on a piece on Swamppolitics.com merely, and quite ridiculously state “Obamas Socialism starts“. But then, to these people, if Sean Hannity mentions ‘Socialism’ then it’s pretty much unanimous within the limited intellect of the Fox News Audience that Socialism rather than responsible Capitalism, is on the rise.

Let’s address the issue of the so called “rise of socialism” being thrown into the argument by those such as John McCain, who as early as October 2008, was referring to Obama as Socialist. And up to and including, the mass of Right Winged bloggers, who insist on calling anyone who isn’t a ‘pro-life‘ (the most misleading concept since ‘Freedom‘), anti-homosexual, Religious, right winger a ‘Socialist‘. Obama is not Socialist. He is as far from a Socialist as a Left winger could be. He’s Centre-left, at best.

So is the stimulus Socialist? No…

Job-creating investments in health: $153bn

Job-creating investments tax cuts for small businesses: $21bn

Job-creating investments in education and training: $138bn

Job-creating investments in infrastructure and science: $165bn

Tax cuts for working families: $247bn
….. Allow me to draw your attention to the second point…. “Job-creating investments tax cuts for small businesses: $21bn” – In what way, other than the mess of a Republican mind, can that be considered Socialist? Even if a video of Obama, dressed up in Soviet attire, speaking Russian, quoting Lenin was to come to light, it wouldn’t change the fact that $21bn in tax cuts for small businesses, is not Socialist.

It is not a Socialist ideal, to bring Wall Street back to levels of human decency and responsibility. Much like it’s not Fascism to allow those companies to exploit the World, make six figure sum salaries, and then run the company into the ground, whilst the government refuse to acknowledge that they’d done anything wrong; like the Bush Administration did and like the ultra-Conservative Republicans still seem to be advocating.

A socialist, says things like “Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners.” If you were to claim to be Socialist to Vladmir Lenin, or Per Albin Hansson, or Fidel Castro, and one of your main points to your Socialist agenda, was …. “We don’t disparage wealth. We don’t begrudge anybody for achieving success. And we believe that success should be rewarded“, you’d probably be punched in your ‘dirty capitalist face‘. If he were then to repeat what the White House website states about the apparent decay of the Capitalist system: “We must also work with the same sense of urgency to stabilize and repair the financial system we all depend on.” He’d be taken outside and shot, as a traitor to the cause of Socialism.
I shouldn’t have to explain the huge difference between Obama’s plans for America and Socialism. Those who support Obama, know that the Conservatives are trying everything they can to discredit Obama. Perhaps because he can put a full sentence together, which is something the Republican White House has lacked for quite some time. Or perhaps it’s to take the blame away from those who actually caused the financial mess in the first place; themselves. Either way, the fear tactics employed by the Conservatives wont work.

Capping the wages of the bail out CEOs is not an act of a Socialist agenda, it is the act of a President trying to make an irresponsible Wallstreet, accountable to the people who are now bailing them out. If the President were to simply allow Merril Lynch to hand out a mass of Corporate Bonuses, whilst CEOs who systematically destroyed the economy, think it’s perfectly acceptable to then take home six figure sums; not only would the bail outs mean absolutely nothing, not only would Corporate morality remain in the gutter, but we’d also be setting ourselves up for another major economic disaster further down the line.

John Thain, who used taxpayers money to redecorate his office and give out handsome $4bn bonuses after losing $15bn in less than a year, is quoted here as saying “If you don’t pay your best people you will destroy your franchise“. The problem I see with John Thain here, is that ….. you don’t have best people!! Similarly, the argument being used by the Conservatives is that if Obama restricts the pay of bail out CEOs to $500,000, those people will just move to companies offering more money. Firstly, why would any company offer a six figure sum of money, to a CEO who has ran his company into the ground? Secondly, if those CEOs do move on, great, give someone else a chance, they can’t do any worse than has already been done.

From a GOP which has pledged $150 million cut to the Violence Against Women Act, and would instead spend that money on tax breaks for the rich, I do not know how anyone can take their flawed, and rather despicable side in this debate. If a $150 million cut to the Violence Against Women Act, is the prevailing of a Capitalist society over a Socialist society, I think i’d rather live in what they consider to be a Socialist society.

Obama is being used by the Republicans and Conservatives through their tried and tested Fear machine. Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney specialised in it. Republican bloggers and members themselves have embraced it. The fear machine that relies on the idea that the past eight years just didn’t happen. It relies on being unable to acknowledge that it was actually the Republicans who caused this mess in the first place. It’s ignored. It’s ignored, because they know that the moment the word ‘Socialism’ is mentioned, the attention suddenly shifts from how a Republican Party in Government could allow CEOs and top bankers to systematically manipulate and destroy the system, and moves onto how the Democrats propose to fix it. When the truth of the matter is, the bail out Obama has proposed is unprecedented. No one knows how it will turn out. No one knows if it will succeed. It is a pity those same Republicans who attack the stimilus by suggesting they know for sure it will fail and kill America once and for all, didn’t have the same vision before they voted for Bush.

Is Obama really such a huge threat to the future stability of America? No. He is slowly already improving America, collecting it from the gutter in which it was left after the Bush regime. Will America survive Obama, despite Senators like Republican Senator Mel Martinez refered to Obama as a ‘threat’?. The answer, of course, is yes, America will survive Obama, and i’d suggest, America will come out of the Obama Presidency a lot better placed within the World than the isolation of America under Bush.

The paradox of the founding fathers in 1787; the fight for freedom despite the continued use of slave labour, is echoed down the centuries in the unforgivable paradox that the Republicans have created a mess of a system, in which CEOs and Bankers are taking public money that they have not earnt for themselves in absolutely huge amounts whilst the rest of America struggles to feed their families, who could have used that money for themselves. America was born on paradox. It will overcome it again, through the measures put forward by the Democrats, to bring morality back to Wall Street.

Heathrow

As you walk down toward Parliament, from Trafalgar Square, whilst Lord Nelson looms proudly overhead, you enter Whitehall; Civil Service Paradise. On the right hand side of the street you can expect to be greeted by miserable police men standing guard over a huge cast iron fence; the entrance to Downing Street. Time ago, the public could freely walk down Downing Street, but now it’s blocked off. What do they fear? An unhappy British public backlash against broken promises and devious lies?

Perhaps blocking off Downing Street should be extended to the small town of Sipson in West London, the site of the proposed Third Runway at Heathrow. The entire village is being knocked down. The residents who live there have no say. The Government hasn’t apologised. The residents have to move. And yet, this hardly gets a mention. The focus of the Nations attention both in opposition to the plans and in support of the plans, revolve around the Environment, no one appears to want to mention the 700 people displaced by this announcement. One lady living in the village talked of how horrible she felt, telling her young daughter that their school was to be demolished and that they’d have to move away from her friends. No doubt she’s wondering why a Labour Government could be so much of a suck up to Big Business. What do I think of the situation?

The Environment?
It’s disastrously rich of the government to be asking the public to cut down on Carbon Emissions, to tell us that higher taxes on bigger cars is tough but needed, that we’re all guilty, and then decide to build the third runway at Heathrow. According to BBC News last week, emissions on the third runway at Heathrow, in a year, would be twice as high as the entire nation of Kenya. Surely a third runway is encouraging Air Travel? Thus increasing emissions? Thus encouraging Global Warming?
The Government has pledged to only allow new technology with low emission rating aircraft to be using the Third Runway come 2020. The only flaw in this ingenious plan is that we don’t have any low emission rating aircraft, nor have any been designed. The entire fate of 700 villagers in Sipson, rests on the concept that by 2020 we might have better aircraft. In 2020, we might have flying cars, so i’d quite like to build a landing pad where Number 10 Downing Street is.
The Gov said that by 2050, they want carbon emissions from Heathrow to have dropped by 80% to below 2005 levels. Which in laymans terms means that for the next 21 years at least, emissions will rise over 80% from 2005. What about the 700 homes?

The Economy:
This week the widening of the M1 between Junction 21 and Junction 31 was cancelled, putting hundreds out of work, South West Trains cut 480 jobs earlier this week. Woolworths bust, MFI bust, B&Q look close to failure, banks not lending but sucking up public funds, all this despite a huge injection of the wealth of the nation into the private sector to save the economy and jobs. A better financial infrastructure complete with an overhaul of the entirely useless FSA, better public transport including a better bus system, cheaper train pricing (It cost for £42 today to travel from London to Leicester…… it’d cost £10 petrol to drive it….. where’s the incentive to catch the train?) and investment in new, clean public transport… perhaps a ‘greener’ tram system like the one running Nottingham. Stop taxing drivers heavily! We need incentive to ditch our cars. The answer is not building a new runway. Those jobs at the new Heathrow runway do not exist, they aren’t affecting anyone’s lives like the jobs lost at Woolworths or the road building scheme. No jobs would be lost if this project was cancelled because none have been created so far. But still……What about the 700 homes?

The Expansion?
The expansion of Heathrow is supposedly going to deal with the fact that Heathrow is jam packed already. Even though, Heathrow is not jam packed. The only people i’ve heard say that Heathrow is struggling to keep up with growing demand, are the Chief Exec. of BAA, the Financial Director of Virgin and Geoff Hoon. As if that’s a surprise. Most people see Heathrow, notice that prices are falling rapidly, and we wonder, if demand was that high, surely prices would soar? Isn’t that the backbone and fundamental idea of the free market system?
What happens when Heathrow’s third runway reaches full capacity (assuming of course these new low emission aircraft save the day)? Will we need to build a fourth runway to keep up with Rome and Paris too? Or will the Government of that future date say “Woah woah woah, we have five fucking airports in London already!!! Heathrow, Luton, Kent, Gatwick and Stanstead, let’s improve facilities first!” I hope so. And still, What about the 700 homes?

Sipson?
Ah onto the 700 homes that the Government does not care for.
As well as the obscene notion that a Government has the right to decide the fate of the lives of 700 residents, by having no second thought in planning the demolition of their homes, there are also those to be taken into consideration who will live next to the new runway. The Gov appears to be of the opinion that people who live north of Sipson will be more than happy to allow a new runway to disrupt their lives with noise pollution, and carbon emissions. If we take those people into consideration, along with the 700 residents of Sipson, we have a total of over 2000 residents affected by this.
Heathrow Primary school, one of the best in the region will be gone, William Byrd Primary School would be just past the runway, meaning low flying aircraft every few minutes taking off and landing. Harmondsworth Primary school would sit in between Runway two and the new Runway three. Perfect place for a Primary School i’m sure you’d agree.

Labour?
It is not the policy of a left of centre Government to be so heavily influenced by the demands of big Business. As the Guardian pointed out yesterday, many of New Labour’s senior members have strong connections to the Aviation industry.
How does a Labour government allow big bankers to “speculate” so much so that millions of people lose their jobs and their savings to these crooks who inevitably get away with it, yet 700 innocent lives are destroyed by the introduction of runway at an airport, designed to ease the travel woes of such cretinous bankers.
Labour, are born out of Socialist ideals. A socialist ideal does not involve the destruction of 700 homes and the lies that try to justify it. Nor does it involve blatant disregard of their past, to concentrate on business ties. It appears to be another stab in the back of Humanitarian beliefs and fuel in the furnaces of the speeding money money money train.
I’d agree that the difference between a left wing government and a right winged Conservative counterpart, is the left wing’s appetite for progression, both socially and economically, but the proposed expansion of Heathrow is beyond wrong. It cannot be allowed to go ahead.
Labour MP John McDonnell was suspended by Labour this week for his strong opposition to the Heathrow proposal. Punishing those who disagree with you? We’re not Zimbabwe for Christ’s sake. We’re a leading Democratic Nation. And yet, our MPs are not allowed to disagree with the destructive nature of this current Government without fear of suspension. They appear scared to put it to a House of Commons vote too. Because, they’d lose. Much like the EU “Treaty”.

The plans need to be scrapped, but here exists the problem. For the plans to be scrapped, the Tories would have to win the next election for the plans to be abolished, and that’s a risk not worth taking.

Perhaps we could build a third runway over Downing Street.