Archive for March, 2011

Remarks on Caesar’s account of The Gallic War he led.

March 30, 2011

In writing about Caesar I have to ask: whom am I writing to? Especially if the gods control the whole thing. I am not writing to people ignorant of Caesar, I’m writing to heaven with souls probably more cognizant than myself on it, having been around longer than I. And yet anyone that can apprehend these matters, godly enough. What I mean to say is that what truly listens knows the kingdom of god, the solemn complexity, more than me, as well as any one that rises up to history. Can “they” connect to all these issues? Surely “you” can. Yet what metaphysic rule this side of the mountain? We don’t know what that hears or reads sounds like, as it is too solemn for sound and voice. The still economy of movement getting what needs done.

For instance, what if we break up into tribes? I’m sure those in heaven know that tribes are the missing part of modern society, in that The Republic of Rome, was made up of several tens of tribes; Each of which decided an issue; so the tribes had a voice; through the people, as a check upon the senate and executive.

Do we as a people nowadays, have so little power, because we have not broken up into tribes? And what would our tribes look like? Would they match? Could there be trades? Or would the whole thing be so down and kingdom of god like that tribal things would sift out? How does that sort of thing work? The effect of the tribes? Can we say that sort of thing existed? Were there more Christ’s back then? And what of the rest of the ilk. With the daily battle so? And who converses in this? Clearly the kingdom of heaven, and not Caesar drones. Let me venture also to say each tribe was looked after by its own ancestors in the Kingdom of Heaven

Lets be painfully honest here. Marriage holds back everything; in that recognition, very little said, orders followed, tribes recreated. And yet reproduction, population, which is the ultimate focus of today’s world; understated as the issue, requires the logic of marriage for the risk and reward of children; For reproduction is consistent with what Earth’s point is; even as that point necessitates the kingdom of god, out of a fear of death; at the hands of the universe.

Critical to point out, the second tier-prong to tribalism was z paganism grounded in fear of the awesome terror of the universe

The most important thing about Caesar is that he writes. I did not know this. He is a very good writer: very much like Livy: indeed he could have been reincarnated as his uncle Livy, for they have the same style, except Livy has a sense of humor, yet Caesar is too straightforward: He certainly explains how one Gallic tribe turned with other Gallic tribes against Roman interests, but he got help from a good tribe, conquered and made friends with all, uniting them, at the end of bk 1 victorious against the evil Germanic tribe that had invaded Gaul. I suppose their style is consistent with historians writing of the winning side of History. For while the Roman Republic had tribes: it seems a main point of theirs was subjecting lands resided in by far off tribes. Ideally, agglomeration of Rome, and The Gaul’s, got along and bonded in the pursuit of miserable roman interests, or at least tried to tolerate each other, year after year, though I don’t see what was so hard to tolerate about the Gaul’s? They lived in the Swiss Alps, so they say, moving down into northern Italy, during history. Yet they are often cited as prone to folly and immaturity, over reacting to good or bad fortune: betting away their freedom on the throw of the dice.

It should be easy and important to see the consistency between being a writer of history, and then going on to use an army to control the expanding Roman Republic.

Certainly something in heaven is more aware of this in heaven; than any incarnation reading my words; so any understanding of my thought on this flows upward to a mind; rather than some dark abyss that doesn’t even try to answer.

I firmly believe Jesus wrote the gospel according to Mark: and John the Baptist, the other Christ, the gospel according to John. This aids in a pertinent relevant deconstruction that attacks Paul, as the evil one, corrupter of Christianity: which is why I only study the first three gospels. Being a principle figure and a writer, is a critical combination; and consistent with the laud generally heaped on Caesar. You see as a historian, I could write something, like, “and then the Muslims, surrendered to me.” and if as a historian I had some special pipeline to the future, so that my voice was heard, and no one else’s’ offering any contradiction, than the future would believe me, and if the future really controls the past, or the future was the bottom line I communicated with, then the future would make the world around me now conform to my jurisdictions, through interacting of the kingdom of god, and rendition by The Kingdom of Heaven.

Of course how do I get there? And what do they know about making the world a certain way? They would reveal the kingdom of god to me, and then off in the distant horizon would be a man all the Muslims surrendered to, who told them to return to their tribal Arab roots and ways, and he would protect them. Heal and grow like Isis. Bills of credit, not money.

Let me say this inkling another way. Say everything is written by the kingdom of heaven because the kingdom of god can’t write; under dictates of the universe. So a historian, like a journalist or the news media today performs the will of higher power, and therefore has implemented what he has written, because his is the higher voice according to heaven.

But, back to Caesar: When he is writing his formal heavy handed account of the Gallic war: He is already a third of the executive office: being allied with men almost twice his age, who were executive consuls when they were younger. So he is quite famous, and off on this campaign to enrich himself and the state. Rome is notorious for finding trifles and flaws and contrasting other tribes as warlike, and then finding a reasonable way for winning.

Not only that, for this is the time of Caesar; His opponents were suspecting him: for he was not devoid notorious faults, and after a political battle between the courts and the senate, his opponents ordered him to leave his army and return to Rome: (to face some prosecution most likely). Caesar, at the end of the accounts of his books, primarily defeats of Galls; through this reason and that: crosses the Rubicon with his troops, and the civil war is on.

In bk 1 Caesar notes that they were not to fight the Helverti, because they were a straight up tribe notorious for not being cunning or treacherous; being courageous; and I am thought the impression we live, my world, at least, in part through the intercession of heaven, and rule by universe, is not surrounded by the courageous, but the treacherous, with cunning contours. But I know this is far too dramatic characterization.

But as someone attempting to be shown, and show, The kingdom of God: an experience bogged down in the overtones of marriage, I might add; such is a scent of my world perhaps. Or let me say the universe imposes so much, in desiring marriage that cunning, treachery and courage is at a minimum, and there is as natural a context as possible.

As Caesar dealt with Gallic tribes, overcome by the prowess of roman soldiers; (though going to war, nor losing to Caesar, can in anyway strike me as a logical chain of events, unless Roman expansion is construed as the universe’s shadow upon history, the lack of reasonable quality to the context of warfarce, makes us doubt a reasonable context to the very writing, much less understand a confusing context of greater rights for the people, with more warfare, and the gross numbers of people claimed to go along with this robotic unreason: unless, despite these religious safeguards, the kingdom of god must be moved and asserted unreasonably fit to greater degree now; but with greater shifts of temperament as suggested by the Greeks: the good, and then the madness?

Bewitching is Caesar’s very quality of kindness to honorable or merely foolish Gallic tribes which is wholly rested upon Christian understandings, including the kingdom of god; and the rampant paganism about hinged upon the orders being followed of the more respectable and assisting men, or people. Somehow that Wicca movement and transitory establishment of pagan tribalism, gives way to foolish incitement of roman arms. Either a tabla reason erasing of all generations have known, is whitewashed for younger generations to be foolish; in just the complete societal control of people’s stupidity; or these warlike ordeals existed on paper to a maximum, and in actuality to a minimalism, whose resonance lives on paper, with words. In any event one hopes paganism of the following-good-orders kind, would precisely not give way to antagonizing the Caesars of the world. Yet maybe the Caesars of the world, and really they do not exist, being constructs consistent with a sacrificial design to society that is cunning and treacherous in its unnoticed quality; Maybe we are lied about, and if those lies accepted as truth, how do we stop those lies.  And in comparison to a pagan power structure, the historians version of their world indicates an absolute control on people, not of the client, assistant, pagan pattern Gall was said to be known for in other histories; this is part of the psychological Gallic equation: And more vociferous than the Gauls, were the Germanic tribes to the north, soon to surpass the galls in their barbaric opposition to galls; being nomadic, anti-agriculture, and testing of what they can take.

Now here we are at a passage I note from Caesar saying the corn in the area this far north not being ripe yet. Reminded I am how future emperors would give free corn to the people in return for their support. So how is it, that the Indians in north America showed us corn? Why was it only used for horses in Europe, as I remember hearing: Why its newness to Europeans when the ancient world refers to corn many times over? I must construe this errant history as a metaphysical chip I can lay fortuitiously towards good human events; As The Republic claimed.

There is a particularly funny speech by Julius when he harangues the leaders of a tribe for not getting him the corn they had promised, as he pursued their enemy; saying they were the ones who asked him to fight this war. This was written by Caesar and almost self-comical effacement of what these wars are all about. Who would rather war than grow food? A world controlled by marriage, will do what it is made, and follow forms: even while the reality of this is hard to fathom.

Paganism is up against history. Jesus and The Roman Empire, line up against Paganism. The domiant media image, the standard is Marriage; there that void may may controll the will enough. At an unconsious level, “we” know the truth; yet our will be burned by misimpression; and absolute control by The Kingdom of Heaven, operating both history, news, and actual goings on.

While the defeat of the galls in ongoing and reconciled, the Germanic prince to the north takes over a good and best portion of Gaul. The numbers of the Gauls and Germans, and of our present day extend into the hundreds of thousands; but rather than build large cities, back then, they might migrate and kill and take over another area; or at least force them to move, depleted. These acts of violence are hard to fathom and rationally submit to. Yet metaphor to taking back earth’s freedom from the Universe; scary, uncertain, requiring prowess.

The Germanic prince is portrayed as having demanded and received as hostages, children of prominent tribal members, and then tortured them. Is this propaganda? With the kingdom of god, this is a historical story. So Caesar having pacified the galls, was bonding further with them against a hotheaded German prince.

The description of barbarians as lacking military skill casts light upon the unreasonable quality of dominant warfare. Caesar’s dispelling the fear in his army of the Germanic prince Aristovic, was every bit the soaring speech between captive audience we see today, when the real world matters nothing to the speech: the audience is not seen, when glimpsed, formal and controlled. The Gallic Tribe Aristovic had conquered was known formally as a “brother of the roman people” while Aristovic had ties to the roman senate as a “Friend of the roman senate and state. Surely you see the two routes, to the people and the state, corrupted and idealized: an almost communist imperialism.

Caesar has a wonderful description of the overall dialogue between tribes regarding causes of battles and wars and losses: The nuances of today’s news media are lost for in explaining how and why so and such happened, in as reasonable, straightforward honest-appearing fashion as possible, like a movie. There is a finer form to the tale of these battles and wars. And yet the roman people, through the roman state, are at least exhorted by Caesar as being about increasing the dignity, favour and prestige and distinction, of other people’s that got along with her. Thus the worldly ideal of common brotherhood, contrasting an isolated and more peculiar and rich for it, nativity.

In Bk one, Caesar unites the galls including the instigator tribe, and leads on against the Germanic unifier who has crossed the Rhine and rendered gallic tribes tribute payers. What is remarkable is that after these seasons, Caesar takes his army upon the state of Rome and wins. These conclude my remarks on book 1 by Caesar of the Gallic Wars: A few final remarks.

Of the many Gallic and Germanic Tribes, a few of them had what was known as a good king. A good king is worth a lot. He can lead a society to a much better degree than a society with a bad king, or with a representative government: by virtue of the fact that his goodness is respected, not that he has actual power for compare the power of one, to the combined power of numerous in charge. Also, the war seems phony, the way pornography seems unattainable by free will. The only dire consequence to war may be a sacrifice towards saved humans. Also there is the concept that each tribe had “leading citizens” people whose sons and daughters could be accepted as hostages to ensure no attacks. Do we have leading citizens and what do they constitute or could? Can we imagine a tribal system in mountain towns whose leaders had clients and assistants, much the way ascetics become recognized to; and then with this system, frequent warfare?

But my final and most general remark on Rome is that looking at the pictures of Romans on the book cover, and having looked at the sculptures and facades of Romans made in ancient times, these people look very white, with white features, it seems, and though on stone, seem to be of the stuff associated with whites. Yet the people of Rome today are very Italian looking. So this to me is hard to explain.

Also the people of most parts of Gaul, grew their hair long.

Also we must ask ourselves, whether the frequent battle, the slave traders, and in a considerably more free, or rather people worshiping and respecting society, and by extant, the crime reported in the journals ignorant of the kingdom of god, as service I hope helps this work, for the journalist’s job is to lie about and obscure The Kingdom of God. And this is so powerful upon them that the service they need most is lacking; we must ask ourselves if these are sacrifices unto some good: whether the kingdom of heaven has its durations and cycles. For which I wonder upon the dark opaque upon our light. The level and form of modern civilization, even more tuned to lies than the ancient tribal world, must ripple farther in immaturity through this obstacle; or must we not admit impediments to true love?

I also wonder what evidence and why of the worship of Mithras by Roman Soldiers. Maybe this was too early for that: How can we imagine Roman soldiers, gambling in bars, seiging fortified cities, and worshiping Mithras, the god of the bull of the center of the earth? Is it all So on paper? Is it all a statement, and the statement the design of sacrifice?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Picking up on book 2 and 3 the following are my remarks on the text.

Back then it was standard to accept hostages of questionable states and tribes that had been subdued by victorious or more imperial tribes and states. Then if the subjugated state violated peace terms or initiated military issues, the other side had the sons and daughters of leading citizens as hostages; though also ordinary citizens. Sometimes just two hostages sufficed, sometimes, if a risky peace, a few hundred were required. Sometimes both sides gave hostages; with the implicit being.

By this structure, what should have been done regarding Lybia is this: Take Khaddafi’s children hostage. One was already in the united states interning. You get a few hostages related to Khaddafi, then tell him to make peace and be good; and see what happens with older tactics in today’s age.

Hostages were necessary, because in the Gallic War, the Gallic tribes had the gall to treacherously secretly prepare to fight and fight, after having agreed to peace terms.

Most of the Gallic Tribes practiced long hair, like hippies today. A tribal structure probably facilitated a simpler economy. They must have been whiter but cruder in the Alps, than the Romans from Rome. But an inquiry into why the statues and frescoes of ancient Rome seem of such white features, whereas todays Italians look a bit different; seems to have answered itself with the claim that back then, in the first century before Jesus, the Italian tribes were blonde and red haired people. They only became dark skinned when over run by the moors a thousand years later. I don’t know if that is the answer. I thought there was a secret switch whereas the whiter Gauls shaved their hair and snuck around now as whiter romans, whereas the romans who were darker grew their hair longer and lived in the Alps: that these secret trades facilitated a warfare on paper; and explained the weird incongruity in historicism.

The Gallic tribes easily united and roused themselves together against Rome. Unless the population statistics of Gallic Tribes, which came to a million, were inflated, and the romans had more troops or legions and won laws with superior numbers; one could think the long haired mountainous people would win; being tougher and less comforted materially could be favored. There is a sense the roman soldiers are like robots, and thus more prone to win: certainly they are cited for their courage and risking death.

The Jews of the old testament, the ancient Greeks, and the Ancient Romans, all had their famous histories simultaneously during the first millennium before Christ. The jewish and roman tribes; both cultures had tribal divisions comprising them; both seemed to have an automatic and automated quality to the people and state that comprised the background to the histories of the protagonists; that made them hard to defeat, like defeating a machine, or something written; the way the background of the people, to the focus on people in power by the media, is inexplicably dulled and glossed and comforting, rather than reasonably question the power that seems designed to ensure good doesn’t happen, or be shown acting in a loving, spiritual, sensible, truthful way. This assumption of support for power, reinforced by writing, presents a popular and successful modality for historical success, at the expense of more tribal and less written cultures.

Democracy denotes, resonates a bottom-up power structure, where the people may tell the higher ups in power what to do. Of course history is pock-marked by the exact oposite, an apogee of one or a few in power making decisions that ripple across the state and people without input provided by the people much at all. Yea, there is no consensus of the people directing power. Such a misconception that the people can’t consensus.

As each tribe may have had a separate, distinct, or similar in a certain way spirit: so each tribe may have been tested against each other to see which spirit is better; or which planets adherence to, coupled with the spirit, allegiances therein, may win. For people may want wish to know those answers. Tribes are DNA things, I think, it is possible to recognize and tribalize out of a group of people, particularily if women are around. Age seems to diminish tribal differences.

But we still ask ourselves, what exactly a tribe is, so beyond the horizon it seems; as well as why and how the subservience of the people, to people in power, exists today. To shed light on the latter question; let’s look at the term “The son of God”. I never really understood what that term meant. But it was explained to me as evidence of the ability to join and unite people. Thus Jesus as the son of god, demonstrates a favor by “god”, shown in his uniting and joining of people. That he may be known as the only son of god; though john the Baptist is a christ too, such reputation has a bitter irony, if only one throughout history is able to unite and join together people at a puissant spiritual level. Thus the term “the son of god“, does not refer to the wisdom of Jesus; but its manifestation in the uniting and joining together of people at a spiritual, loving, truthful, and orderly way.

So in the context of the term “the son of god”, the leaders of today, and the ancient world, unify and join together people; or, diluted, exercise a homogeneity inherited through power structure, of rule of the people, or support by the people, if you prefer. There is little demonstration of sensible and originating organization of the people on a spiritual and truth-seeking basis; though in some tribal and even conventional structures, truth-seeking is hoped for. Thus media and the history demonstrates an iron-bound, manifestation of some will of higher power towards the pyramid like power structure to history and now; whereas the true son of god, of a good god, would unite in an original sensible and new way.

Let us turn now to examine what a tribe is; for the more I think of my past musings, or the more I muse, in the past, gives my blind intellect a textural feel for what is true: which is this: That when saved humans are born and live and die; they live among a tribe, which may have sponsored them; and then when they die, they maintain and look over the tribe they lived among: So a tribe is a consisting of bodies, human beings, grouped and looked over by one of those in the kingdom of heaven that now personally has some jurisdiction, care, historical weight, interest, existence, sacrifice and use of those bodies, beings.

Different tribes, even as they worship different planets, or ideals, and forms of nature, are maintained or have an intercessory, or afterlife that exists alongside them. That is the secret definition of a tribe. Its organization is culled from the above and hereafter, not the more earthly, absent, or incarnate, or illusion.

My final remark regarding this area of the books, -each book is a year, starting in late winter, roughly; as the campaigns begin again-is that at the end of book 3, we realize that though the previous books are ending in roman victories, and happy endings, and bad guys losing, there are still many tribes against the Romans, and even the ones that got along after being subdued in the first books, are again actively against the romans as we start book 4. In other words, despite a lot of words on all the peace attained, there seems to be a long line of war ahead of caesar. And please remember, it is assumed, unlike today, that the state and leading generals gaining wealth through plunder, was protocol and acceptable.

Caesar at the end of book three is fighting again a few tribes that live in the woods and marshes, since they learned of the failure of Gaul in pitched battle; and Caesar loses quite a few men, and then sets about cutting trees down to force pitched battle; yet the rains come, so Caesar remits himself the burning of their fields and plundering of villages; this is the first citation of this sort of activity, ergo, a signifier of Caesars increased cruelty brought on by prolonged warfare; meanwhile, we must not forget; trouble is brewing between Caesar’s supporters and opponents; there is a prolonged court fight attempting to get Caesar back to Rome to answer some questions, possibly involving his tendency to bribe: So these wars may be artifice to keep him busy, or provide more funds to bribe with. Though in the course of generalship, there is no thought to bribery. Ceasar refered to himself in his history in the third person.

NOTES ON BK IV
Very soon there were more trouble with Gallic and Germanic Tribes. The Gauls are very feisty, and even after surrendering plot and fight back. But Caesar takes care of everything in the thorny mix of politics only tens of Gallic and Germanic tribes can create.

Yet many of those tribes, like Rome, like America, had senates; which would at least issue advisory behaviors, and formulate policy. But unlike our senate, which represents a very large area; the senates of classical times, referred to a governing body that might rule the whole of the tribe, but essentially represented those within a much smaller, and localized area of land than America, or even one of her states; more like a county.

Therefore while our federal senate has a legal largesse towards local government, constitutionally requiring rule by state or people, and while Rome encouraged assemblies of the people to meet and consider issues; I believe the localization of senates impeded and inhibited the people, much more than our senate in Washington or state legislators. At the essence of any council is good relations with the people; as song that may go something like this; allowing good freedoms to go undetected; Allowing peaceful assemblies where the will and direction of the people may be specifically reported, if unasserted; assuming the difference between government and the people a two-party constant; whereby the same token, the people must not take the wealth of the rich in power; in exchange, while states and history’s arbitry rule overrides the natural spirituality to people, forms for democracy that assertains the voice and will of the people, make for a merry compliment to the council. So often today, locally, the people are of one opinion, and the entire local council another; would we expand a form to include such registrations via peaceful assembly.

Caesar built a bridge at considerable expense, to cross the Rhine: Then he was able to threaten the Germanic tribes that kept invading Gaul and show the Germanic Tribes what it is like to have an enemy army on their space. Then he took the bridge down, but instead of heading south to winter, he hustled up north to take on Britain because men from Britain were aiding the warlike Germanic and Gallic tribes.

In this move there are several thoughts; that he is tacking up north to Britain, to catch a southerly wind that will blow him with power back to Italy, as the power of his men liking him is increased and will increase with a little incursion to Britain. And he buys time, might gain experience and plunder, for his ensuing conflict with Rome himself. By this time in the late republic of Rome, there were instances in history of soldiers being loyal to their commanders, and not their nation. Because his incursion into Britain was very unexpected and an expedition for Rome.

He had several battles in several areas with the british tribes. Just landing on the shores and disembarking was hard, as the barbarians, as he called them, were waiting for them, when the Romans tried to land. But the Romans always won, enough, and then Caesar had to leave anyway to spend the winter in the Belgic part of Gaul, and he asked for hostages from each tribe as he left, and they could send the hostages to him in the belgic part of Gaul, but in the winter, only 2 tribes of Britain did.

I would like to give an example of Caesar’s writing style. This translation begins book 4.

“The Suebi are by far the greatest and most aggressive of all the German people. It is said they posses a hundred villages, from each of which they take a thousand armed men from every year for waging war outside their own territory. The men who remained at home support both themselves and those who are abroad; then the following year they take their turn under arms while the other stays at home. In this way both agriculture and the theory and practice of warfare continue without interruption. There is however, no private or individual landholding among them, nor is it permissible to remain dwelling in once place more than a year. They consume little corn but for the most part live off milk and cattle and spend much of their time hunting. This activity, coupled with their diet, daily exercise and the freedom of their way of life- – from childhood they are unaccustomed to duty or discipline, and so do nothing whatsoever against their will, nourishes their strength and produces men of enormous physical, stature. They have, moreover, trained themselves by constant practice, so that however cold the region they wear no other clothing than skins, which are so small that most of the body is left uncovered, and they bathe in rivers.”

(Thus you have Germans, strengthened by hardy and natural living, up against Romans, often forced into duty and disciplined things, the instinct may not desire; Thus you have strength vs the ability to do what you do not want to; implying a case for regimen, or the odd ability to do the most distasteful thing of all, kill, oppose a greater strength helplessly not attuned for what does not make sense. So battles be decided by gods ruling all; that status and strength to the state posed over pagan and tribal ways.)

“They do allow traders access, but rather with a view to having buyers for their spoils of war than because they want anything imported. Furthermore, the Germans do not import for use the kind of pack horse which the Gauls so delight in and pay high prices for. They take their own native animals, which are deformed and ugly, and by training them everyday, make them capable of extreme hard work. During Calvary battles they often jump down from their mounts and fight on foot; for they have trained their horses to remain on the same spot, and then quickly retreat to them in time of need. According to their standards, there is nothing more feeble or disgraceful than using saddles. And so, however few there might be, they will boldly move up to attack any number of calvary on saddled mounts. They forbid the import of wine altogether believing it makes men weak and womanish in their capacity for exertion.”

The Suebi value having space between them and neighboring tribes, except a tribe between them and the Rhine, popular and prosperous, they can not expel but force tribute from it. Two of the tribes they expelled, wandered around Germany, scaring settled places, and upon arriving at the Rhine and wanting to cross to Gaul, alarmed the Gallic Tribes and Caesar, when they tricked the Gauls by pretending to leave, then attacking three nights later, then lived off the provisions for the winter. The system of information back then was through traders, who, being mobbed at Gallic towns for information, were not honest newsmen. Caesar had to get a bead on this situation, as some of Gall had already sent envoys capitulating and crumbling to this situation.

As I said, after rectifying this situation and chasing the Ubi Germans back over the Rhine, he built a bridge and showed the Germans. He was then befriended by The Morini, who supplied him with corn on his way to Britain, and was unknown to Rome and Gaul, but then after battling British tribes near the shore, and sailing back to Europe to winter, the moroni thought they could plunder his plunder at an opportune moment and attacked, but Caesar and the Romans, life is not easy, but they always prevail.

Here are more examples of Caesar’s writing, “all who were able to bear arms were to assemble in one place, and the place they chose was almost in the center of the territory controlled by the Suebi. They were waiting here for the arrival of the Romans, where they decided to give battle.

“By the time Caesar discovered this, he had already accomplished all the objectives for which he had decided to take his army across (the Rhine)…..namely terrorizing the Germans, wreaking vengeance upon the Sugambri, and liberating the Ubii from a blockade. So after spending a total of 18 days on the other side of the Rhine he judged he had achieved enough in terms of honor and advantage, returned to Gaul and tore down the bridge.

“The campaign season was almost over and because the whole of Gaul looks northward, winter comes early in these regions. Despite these facts, Caesar changed his course to set out for Britain, aware as he was that our enemies in almost all our wars with the Gauls had received reinforcements from that quarter. He considered, moreover, that even if the season left not time for a campaign, none the less it would be of a great advantage just to land there on the island and observe what kind of people…..”

 ———————————————————————————

My strategy going into be in bk V was to cite every interesting think and remark upon it; but this itemized account misses the narrative to this yearly account- history of Caesar’s years north of Rome. Livy’s history of the Roman Republic written 75 years later, also consists of yearly accounts based on The Annals, which is a year by year official history the republic kept for herself. Odd how we in America don’t officially record what this year comprises. The government does not cite what it particularly feels is most important; being governed largely by the press. And yet nor do the people have the ability to cite what is important after the press. Would the government choose what to remember, would they choose the same as the press, or give more symbiotic kindness to the people and common sense than the press?

Essentially, he detaches himself from his troops, for warfare ceases in the colder months, and as a diplomat, made some peaces in Gaul, while his men wintered building 628 ships for an invasion of Britain. Then after that, wintering in Gaul, there is lots of havoc that winter as the Galls attack.

The first winter, he leaves his troops in the winter to build ships for the invasion of Britain. Lord knows what an operation it was to build 600, ships, and the following year he fights an army of 60,000 Galls; these numbers frankly seem exaggerated, in compulsion with a world that exists on paper, and a world that really is, encouraged by sophisticated spiritualities.

One form of politics out there back then, was to call for all people to muster into an army at a certain time and place, and so levy troops. Upon doing so along the Adriatic, the offending tribe backed down; making an excuse heard throughout Caesar’s books, that the leaders of the offending tribes were merely taking arms out of tribal or state policy, not by personal leadership, and/or that such policy was merely a means of uniting the tribe or maintaining a calm bow to the ship of state, nothing more.

The Galls would unite for war on the same fashion, calling for a meeting place. So the offending tribe really wanted to make reparations, and gave Caesar hostages to secure the deal, and Caesar appointed arbitrators to assess the damages.

So Caesar went back to check out the ships, 600 ships seem a lot of trees. However a strong Calvary tribe, the Treveri, were trying to unite Gaul against the Romans. They had always failed to attend the assemblies Caesar called. I read a history book that ascribed the genesis of republican representative government, whereby a locality sent a representative to deal with larger issue, to Christian attempts to organize itself, which was inconsistent with Pagan locality and idiosyncrasy. However here is instance of it. And yet what is the sending of an envoy or representative in this situation? Is it something someone would be voted in for? I believe No, because the point of the representative would be to vote a certain way, to follow the orders and will of the people he serves, even coming back to the local area, describing the issue, and directly asking the people he represents how he should vote. Maybe that is the nature of representative government anyway. But I find the suspicious shifty nature of today’s congressman, where they really have little recourse to come back to the people and ask them, in popular assemblies particularly where they can debate and affirm or reject with ayes and nays; because so much of today’s congressman’s domain, involves the rest of the localities around the country, that he knows little about, that today’s congressman seems a little air headed; there are too many nuances around the country for this one size fits all leadership of the federal government. It is mean to avert the negative, not find solutions to make things more positive; that is incumbent upon regions knowing themselves, and precisely not being led by a general will far broader than their concern. Our congressman could be told how to vote on each issue through a canvassing of the people, or in tandem with the leadership of a state that advises votes per unification of state interests. This would be a check on the leniency we allow Washington to think for themselves.

Because Caesar was so strong militarily, the uniting tribes began to defect, till their leader didn’t want war, and secured his peace with 200 hostages including his own sons and family. And Caesar appointed his good rival to be in charge. This is very much an instance of attempting to install someone in power of another state, your state would benefit from.

When returned to his troops and ships, The Galls volunteered 4000 of their best cavalry to aid in the invasion of Britain. This shows you Gallic character. They are stupid and loyal to the Romans, being bested by them in war, they felt they had, you couldn’t beat them, it was always better to go with them. Because Caesar had the soldiers, he didn’t ask for any hostages to insure peace from the Gallic tribes.

However there was one disgruntled leader, among the Calvary who tried to stir them up among the Romans, as they waited 25 days for propitious winds to blow the fleet and galls and horses and Romans to Britain. Dummonix was like a Nato ally defecting, or regional leader who does not play along, and when he saw he could not incite the galls to attack, tried to leave with his men on the day the winds shifted favorably, but even so, Caesar chased them down, killed Dommonix only, and the men went back to the port. Dummonix pleaded he was free to not fight for the Romans. However, then he should not have volunteered.

Upon landing in Britain, Caesar took prisoners of people in the fields, and they said, there had been an army here watching but they fled upon the sight of the ships. So Caesar made after them, and saw them 11 miles away, but it was a trap of forest fortifications; but then the Romans by locking shields over the heads and supporting another floor of Romans, overcame the barricades and dispelled the Brits. Meanwhile though a storm destroyed many of their ships, and Caesar returned to where they were ashore.

Rome had the effect of uniting the antagonizing tribes of Britain, and they united under their strongest leader inland of the coastal regions.

The Brits painted themselves blue for battle, and this made them scarier, and they had long hair and mustaches, but shaved the rest of their body. I never quite got the mustache. They also shared their women, with any resulting offspring to the first she met. The leader of Britain fought a guerilla war, avoiding pitched battle, and attacking the camps of the Romans then running away. They would fight in small clusters, and/or would use their chariots to lure the roman Calvary away, they step out of their chariots and hack down the roman Calvary. Caesar commented they would try to lure their Calvary whether retreating or advancing on.

However at some point the King, Cassellvaulaunnis, seemed to firmly believe or extend his concept of a limited war; for there was one attack upon the camp that they allowed the legions to mobilize and took them on and lost men, and from there, upon retreat, the king let many of his troops go, maintaining only an elite chariot division to fight and harass the Romans.

Meanwhile some of the other tribes with kings were reaching out to the Romans, making promises to them if the Romans helped them against the tribes picking on them; even offering themselves to Roman Rule. Cassivellaunaus, acted 4 kings who ruled to the south to go over to Caesar’s fleet and destroy it, and when that only led to the defeat of the 4 kings by Caesar’s cohorts left behind with the boats. I wonder when tribes turn over their government to Caesar, which it doesn’t seem Caesar accepted, are they prepared to satisfy the government, and have a secret autonomy, and how well do they give up autonomy? Is it out of fear? Certainly a shift metamorphosed. Caesar set an annual roman tribute to Rome, took hostages, and did not want to stay in Britain as it got colder. However the winter ahead in Gaul was no picnic.

There is a code throughout Roman history, that cold weather stops the fighting, and where Hannibal winters, and where the roman army stays, can be an issue; but generally hostilities cease in wintertime. The amount of constant warfare is amazing. All the hostilities between the Galls, each year, and major expeditions against the Romans, several times, in the few years Caesar is there; seems exaggerated. However, this winter, a drought had decreased the corn supply, so that the Roman army had to break up into places in rough trapezoid with each point 45-125 miles apart. This motivated the Galls to break the rules of warfare and attack one of the eastern encampments. However when unable to swiftly defeat the Romans, the galls asked for a “parley”. Now “parley” is a fine term we don’t use anymore but sure could, meaning to talk about something in everyone’s interest, or speak about something that could advantage all. The camp under attack now had chance to discuss what to do. The Gall at the parley said he wasn’t really against them, just lining up with a general Gallic conspiracy and would let the Romans leave unharmed through his land. The good Roman, Cotti, argued for holding out there, having corn in store; whereas the weaker Roman, Sabinus, argued for hightailing it out of there.

The problem was, that instead of hightailing it out of there at night, they left at dawn, so the Romans were easily able to hide and ambush them only two miles out of the camp westward, and Sabinus for one, did not expect the ambush. And when he responded to the Gallic leaders request to parley, and laid down he and some of his men’s arms, they found themselves surrounded and killed. Then by the morning, everyone was killed, some by suicide, the last ones, but a few slipped away to tell the nearest Roman Camp. Meanwhile the victorious galls were able to round up ten more tribes, and attacked and besieged that nearest encampment.

The however the camp had had time to built towers and reinforcements. After a siege of over a week, with towers on both sides, and fires, and fierce fighting, Caesar heard about what was going on, and marched with his remaining two legions out there.

When the Galls heard about this, they left the siege to fight Caesar. They tried to trick the Romans, by hanging out in a valley near a stream so the Romans would come down to them and fight their superior numbers on flat land. But Caesar instead played a trick on them Galls attacking and then retreating so as to eventually lure them up the hillsides, where with the downward edge the Romans were able to prevail. One notable fact was that not all the galls showed up. In between leaving the siege and meeting Caesar, some had apparently found more interesting concerns over a day or two.

Since this insurrection subsided, the Gallic tribes were still all conferring each other what to do, and some new leaders uniting them coming forward. A man Caesar had instilled as King somewhere was killed. And Caesar was suspicious of a vast majority of the tribes. And of the worst offenders, he would ask for their whole senate to appear before him.

Again if most tribes had that form and proximity of patrician senate government, alongside Pagan and informal leadership, either Caesar, being historical is ignoring the Pagan leadership and influence, which can even be construed as a failure of paganism against the Roman Republic, which was pagan too, and superior by government, which the historian here cites; whereas historians with a religious eye might cite other dominant movements as important to the story of the galls.

Another thing to point out is the Rhine really separated the Galls and the Germanic tribes. The division of culture between European nations, lingers on as a tribal concept, and the finest thing of Europe are those tribal divisions. The Galls always said the Germanic tribes were right behind them, but were frequently lying to intimidate the Romans.

 

 The Rhine is a magical river. I had the fortune to bike from Amsterdam to the rhine in Germany, and it is a resort and timeless river, as the views and countryside is very protected there, probably offering the same sensual experience as a thousand of years ago. The Rhine then extends East and dips South to the center and bit south of Germany, Heidelberg, from where in the distance across the plains, you can see the towering alps, in which there is a path through similiar to the Appalachian Trail.

There was one final attack that winter upon the Roman camp run by Labinus. And the Romans utilized an interesting trick in repelling it, they chased down only the Gallic leader who organized the attack, and it worked, when the Gallic soldiers saw the Romans going only after their leader, they stepped aside, and upon beheading the Gallic leader, the Romans then made easy work of the remaining galls.

 The one closing interesting point I’d like to make, as that as someone opposing the institution of marriage, as confining, i find it interesting the brits would share their woman in groups of ten or twelve, and that more than one man could form an attachment to a women, that such was OK. This is a response to the dominance of marriage upon the lifestyle. It doesn’t seem a perfect solution, but perhaps an improvement.

 

 ———————————————————————————————

As we start remarking upon bk 6, these are three initial points flowing out of previous remarkable episodes:  First, after sharing the yearly executive office, in his late 30’s with two decorated generals a generation older, he got himself appointed proconsular in the Gallic provinces: as that was a powerful governorship to hold, and the constant war consistent with increasing power and wealth. However it was a ten year appointmentship; so this account of war, had built into it ten years worth; as Caeasar for all his controll was not necessary able to stifle war and increase peace so much by the spiritual axis the republic and times rotated around.

Secondly I find myself looking at these past times like this: Like it was a time of small population, enabled not having the emnities and ease of today’s time that afford large population. The paganism, and apparent domains of freedom, indicate an polar oposite of values to the war and history Caeasar takes us through. This leads me to think, the statistics were very exagerated, and if we can just imagine instead of 60,000, a legion of 6, or population and military statistics shorn of several zeroes; we can still see the military challenge of history to the pagan religious values, in the form, that even at decreased numbers, who won, still counted; and there was contest and challenge; even though at this level, even less insofar it is hard to imagine one team incessantly winning.

——————–

One of the two men Caesar was to war over Rome with, Pompey, 30yrs older, had himself named proconsul of Spain, giving him the right to wage wars in Spain. Yet he did not go to Spain, which made him look bad, running things by Legates, from a place near Rome. The Republic emphasized “leaders at the front” to such a degree, than being Proconsul, meant not being allowed to live in Rome.

Through Pompey, Ceasar gets 2 new divisions, doubling what he lost. “His speed and strength of numbers proved clearly what the resources and military organization of the Roman people could achieve.”

Caesar sees a particular amount of trouble this year, and takes preemptive action as early as possible. A central area was where the Nervi lived, though they were not especially against Rome, their countryside aided and abetted such tribes. So Caesar went in, before any defense, and effectively compelled the Nervi to aid Caesar. Then Julius called a Gallic Council. The three tribes that did not show were taken as at war with Rome. Noticeably now, these conquests and battles were taking us out to France, where the Semones troubled Rome.

He got there before their leader could assemble the people, whether to consensus or arm I do not know, and so their envoys merely had to time to beg Ceasar for mercy. Because the Semones were patrons of The Adeui, Ceasar let them off easy with a hundred hostages.

Ceasar had moved the Gallic Council to France, and quickly the Carnutes, who were looked after by the Remi, sent envoys and hostages pleading their cause. Thus France was a fast place to get to, and weaker to Rome then the Galls and Germans. Yet the region was called Gaul.

It was not about taking out particular tribes, but their friends first, The Menapii with their vast forests and marshes, might offer hiding. The Treveri, really weren’t as close to Amberiox, who organized this fight against Rome. Ceasar dispersed the Menapii to the ends of their land, while his legates, invaded Trevari territory.

Caesar built causeways across the marsh, burning structures as he came to them, so the Menappii quickly sent envoys seeking peace.

The legate Labinius ended up camping across a river from The Trevari. The river was not wise to be crossed, and the Trevari were waiting for their German Allies. But Labinius ordered a retreat, which was reported to the other side by virtue that both sides had Gauls and the Gauls had sympathy for each other; but secretly at night, Labinius ordered the breaking camp not only seem like a retreat, but a disorderly uncivil one. So the Trevari braved to cross the river and pursue uphill, enabling the Romans the high ground easy victory required. The Gauls wanted the goods of this small army. The flight was deception, the baggage, carrot. The oncoming Germans were scared away as well, and it seemed peace quickly reigned.

Caesar decided to cross the Rhine, knowing how the bridge was built, to prevent Amberoix’s army from taking refuge there, and to punish the German Tribes for daring to aid the Trevari.

Crossing Ubii land, the Ubii told Caesar they had nothing to do with the grievance, it was the Suebi. The Ubii told Ceasar the Suebi were gathering for war, and Caesar told the Ubii to take their cattle and goods to a certain village, so as to lure the Suebi into battle. But the Ubii reported, the no agrarian more barbaric Suebi retreated into the distant depths of their forests.

Here in The Gallic Wars by Ceasar, we come to a cultural history, differentiating the traditions between the Gauls and the Germans. This is fascinating, and reminiscient of Herodotus’ fame, insofar as gained by his reporting beyond wars and histories of state’s wars and usurpations, to cultural history and traditions.

By Book 7, Ceasar’s term in Gaul is almost over, as civil unrest in Rome becomes too compelling. Thus, formulaically, though Gaul is subdued and peaceful, The Galls hear about the unrest, mistakenly assume Ceasar isn’t coming back; so plot more unrest. Are Gauls really that dumb? Each year they try something and fail. Is this more written than true? His story not …… ? Something we make up about the human race, that may have some faint truth to it, manifesting in sacrificial slaughter, but of what proportion.

Ceasar casts them as freedom fighters, seeking the strength to overthrow Roman, Ceasar’s rule. And yet they haven’t and can’t and ergo offer incentives and need people who understand their cause is great enough to die for. Yet traditionally, the subjucated tribes against Rome, had to whip themselves up into the spirit required to launch war against Rome; One may imagine criminals, plotting, doomed to fail: They can’t really be that dumb. The plotting, only imagined; the slaughter, hopefully overestimated.

The fear of some tribes deserting, usually overcome by exchanging hostages with each other, for instance, children; this couldn’t be done without arousing suspicion now; so they made pledges, and did sacred acts, with the intent of binding themselves together; yet the yearly futility renders such oath laughable in face of Roman invincibility. Why the warrior? Like criminals doomed to fail, actually chalked up as sacrificial slaughter, a form of pagan sacrifice through war.

Thus, Ceasar alleges the Gauls slaughtered a Roman settlement. Then notes word of it traveled 160 miles in a day, sensationally. The stout son of an ex-patriot of Rome, killed by Rome, for creating his own county, rousts up the rest of Gaul, first rounding up the derelicts, then everyone else, to fight, tossing out of town, those against fighting, and instilling loyalty through strict punishment; a questionable tactic.

Ceasar’s sympathetic account of the gaul’s needing to roust and rouse each other up, through council and peer pressure, egging on, threats, whatever it took, the gaul made it happen so that there would be war this spring; almost like farming is meant to be. Yet the Gaul’s style rousting war, is very much like conspiratorial folly, convincing others to rash action. Is this a simplistic over-design to the political writing? Was it about pride, and foolishness? Did pride really kill the Gauls?

I have to note Ceasar’s skill at depicting wartime events, chronologically, in an easy for the reader to see manner, has improved markedly. Maybe its my tolerance for his style, I shall have to reread the books of the earlier campaigns, but they often had to be reread in parts, to understand how the campaign got here to where it was. Now, in book 7, the narrative and plot is as easy to see as anything and clearly drawn, around the old plot of one particularily evil Gaul, being able to rally all the others.

There are images that leap and stick into the eye, such as earthworks 80 feet tall 330 foot high reaching up to rival the walls of the prestigious gallic town; of men building those earthworks without food, proudly; of a 400 horse germanic calvary aiding the romans; and such the forests of gaul surround the fortressed town with a little clearing and trails off the pastures where the roman soldiers hopefully scavenge for cattle.

The distances are easier to see. It is still hard to imagine ten thousand men marching through 6 ft of snow through a mountain pass; the sheer numbers are hard; but the charactorizations, of everything, stick to the mind more, scab up out of the heart like so much hatered blood wigging out unnecessarily at another, soley to show the military evil of man.

Another item I can’t help pointing out, alluded to earlier, the concept is not just this yearly fool-hardy scheme of attacking Julius, but convincing most of the gallic tribes to rally round and join in, what the heck, maybe it’s our year; Because it is not so hard to imagine one skilled gall a year attacking Juliues, and to be sure, these yearly attacks have been initiated by different tribes in different places, continuously over 6 years, so it is not the whole of Germany, Briton and Gaul all at one, and in book 7 we are concerned with what they called then, transalpine Gall, which may be a clever way of sticking the gall brand upon what we now call southern France, all the way up Paris.

How do we get all the nearest 7-20 tribes to go along with the skilled one advocating the killing and trapping of Julius’s men, while Julius is off in Rome, dealing with Rome? It always looks like a sure thing. Likewise for a crime to go down, it may more likely involve numbers of people, initiated from one focal point for sure, but how to the make or have all the people who go along with this, criminally minded as wel? : That is the question.

Are the Galls screwy enough to be so psychologically misplaced as to there being widespread homosexuality the masculine gaul can’t admit to publically, and therefore he is prey to all foolish schemes he can’t see his way past. Is there something else psychologically, in the Gallic nation, that will make them combine to criminal, or at least foolish mischief? And to be sure, Gallic ressurection is not a crime, but a freedom-loving thing to do; yet attacking the roman soldiers insigates that which just further harms gallic life.

Ceasar successfully seiges the town, by moving a tower between the 80 ft high earthwork and the wall, and crossing through the tower onto the wall. Then the Romans slaughtered the town, being angry and hungry, and avenging a slaughtered roman settlement. According to Julius 39,000 men women and children were killed. Can we imagine a walled town able to keep in 40,000?

The leader of galls at camp where the 1000 that escaped death fled to, impressed the galls with his spirit, reminding them he had advocated burning the town, and that he was diplomatically working to unite remaining gallic tribes in the cause; a have no fear speech, the galls loved.

It’s a little like the big convention in America, having to try to rally the convention, to support one weak candidate for president; because the states couldn’t decide in simple popular vote. It’s trying to unite people in a way that does not work, outside of the fans and favoring spirit; a foolish cause is a losing enterprize. Yet the romans draft to impose their will on Gall, through strong goverment: the galls, through these large gatherings, in the woods, yearly, or more often; and these gatherings were not exclusive to elected representatives; and had religious rituals, and tests of prowess. Obviously the regimented, unquestioned order of the romans, while less free, will best allegiance made this way, through convention rally; because the imposed order binds people together, who have lost it, who are mind-controlled, compared to those joining together out of ferver, the romans are able to take the sheer atrocity of war better.

Slightly reminiscient of the 2012 primary whereby suggested the states vote on national  policies, to approve or disaprove; rather than the perennial convention of congress; that likewise the people approve local policy decisions locally. Likewise, that the rally in the summer, for Republicans, will be more Gallic, than any in recent memory. The Democrats, like Ceasar’s Rome, have no choice but their Obama, having launched no challenge to him within the party, when any challenge looks good compared to Obama, if coming from close to Obama, thus proving the dysfunction of power; will the democrats have the soldiers, or are they crestfallen?

There is some intertior spirit to the roman legions conveyed through the writing of Ceasar, in a tradition of Livy, who wrote after Ceasar, whereby it almost seems like War is nothing more than a big camp out jamboree with forced marches. And that is way more fun than staying home with the wife and kids. Yet these tribes they march on, are much less wife and kids than we are. Our wife and kids, and school or yearly conscription, these come from Rome; the republic was regulated enough to have war, which is controlled by the mind, and thus the regulation of unconferred upon society we have now. The Robots have won. And we have to admit it. Our cultural legacy, our inability to build beyond with what we start, is grounded in the warlike mentality ordering society to the unfathomable depths now; can only be seen as some sacrifice in the pagan way: that now, not being pagan, we fail to apprehend.

These biovacs were not the bucolic hikes through gallic forests, and then camp out with the old sport of earthworks outside a walled city; because the viokence this leads to, is unimaginable, and pales besides the bonds of soldiers worn together. It’s some literary icing upon political war. Its turning war into something worthy to read about, it records things in an almost phony, way, of special class of roman historian seeking to implicity downplay the violent, for the roman spirit, casting its shadow among who knows what goes on in the gallic counties; an order is imposed, we still live under, shadowy, and faint perhaps, as it is, whereby the foolish are winning, in sight of the kingdom of god, no less, had the kingdom sight, adjoined and restricting the kingdom of heaven, which has its own deal with the pagan universe; an order ripples on where the kingdom of god is used for a story, so it really is a story, and the reader can get that from the tone of the historian, and yet it is meant to be all serious, in its pretense regarding the being upon death, especially, and some order goes by it, and it counts for something, but no, do not take it without a grain of salt; that is the style to Livy and Ceasar, avuncular, perhaps.

Again Ceasar’s glimpses into the practices of Gall, are most amazing. The Adeui, who he had previously subdued, and were a protector tribe, and about the only major tribe still not against The Republic, are referred to as having a senate, like Rome; with liberal laws, such as two people from the same family can’t both be in the senate at the same time. Here is a classical example of a liberal law, upon a conservative practice, a balance and check upon corruption, that grants some superiority to the senate class. So even though the galls are quite different from the romans, like the romans, around 70BC, they have a ruling senate.

And this Aduean Senate was having a conflict, as two people claimed the Senate appointed each not the other to be magistrate, and this conflict was nearing the point of civil war. So Ceasar marched in, chose one, told them to forgive and make up, and lined up—–its actually quite disgusting, the criminal promotion of history, insofar as history is designed.

Yet, this chapter seven, his last chapter, for events in Rome compel his leading of the Republic from civil war, and chap 8, the last, is written by his assistants; it seems too grisly; has gone from adventure, to sensationalist violence it seems. Most we can do, as we end, is point a few survival tips. Early Warning: the earlier you are warned of potential or ongoing harm, the better.

-=====================================———————-

I am going back to book 6 here, for Ceasar makes interesting sociological history of Gallic society.

In Gall, if you had some importance, you guided people

Advertisements

Snyder V. Phelps, protecting funeral rights and rites

March 9, 2011

My opinion of Snyder V. Phelps et al is like Alito’s sole dissent. The opinions can be found here.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf

For me, essentially, the issue is who is in danger of, or actually, abridging the speech of who? The expression of the funeral, or the expression of the protesters. Both dislike each other, but one comes to the other, and can speak anywhere else but near the funeral; whereas the funeral is scheduled of its own accord and volition.

Clearly, to me, the speech of the Phelps abridges the preparation for the speech of the funeral, mitigating the readying and anticipating and ritual of people who should be expected to be engaging in this expression on the way in, without being subject to disturbance damaging that intake: Or on the way out digesting and settling the resonance of funeral speech and rite. Both entry and exit, anticipating, whetting, and digesting, settling, exiting, are consistent with the point of funeral expression, and very protected from abridgement by other speech that can make its expression anywhere it does not harm people actively engaged in specifically what the hate speech hates.  (Free speech oft falsely portrayed as offensive. It really is not. Even if you are saying God is killing our soldiers for our sin of homosexuality, you can gentle say God is Powerful, Man is weak in comparison, Homosexuality is unpleasant and mind-controlled, not natural. Those things Can be said without hatred, and sound OK) Saying good bye has a duration to humanity not nearly limited to specifically being within the church. This is very simple to me, to protect the speech of a funeral, of unhindered anticipation on the way in, and mood and focus on the way out, strikes me as one of the necessary duties of good government, and honest men. On behalf of everyone, as we all die, it is up to the Phelps to not abridge the speech of the funeral. Funeral speech is more ancient than any speech; death leads to the one great thing to say; little else is more compelling of speech and expression: death is the great equalizer, and truth.

The majority makes the mistake protecting the Phelps because their issue is a public issue and political debate is encouraged. There is no mention of the particularized vital need for funeral speech, as ultimately a commentary on all politics and debate by the court. The majority may be assumed to outrank funeral speech with public speech: but no one is stopping public speech, they may make it anywhere as long as it doesn’t impede the procession in and out of the funeral place; so no one is stopping public speech; there is just a complete failure to recognize the speech of the funeral as greater than public debate, in that it effects more people more deeply than the hate speech of the Westboro Baptist church.

Public speech is high, no one is stopping it either, just near people listening to an even higher speech, acknowledging the kingdom of god in funeral speech, a funeral as it is true, pure, is higher and more solemn, and the failure of the supreme court to note this, is symptomatic of a flaw.

Truly protecting this nation, acknowledges spiritual truths, such as movements of the kingdom of god. What the government fails to acknowledge is that funerals acknowledge the kingdom of god, however it is understood, to thoughtful minds and sentient feelings. The funeral is a great speech of public concern, consoling and truthful, solemn and dealing.

Saying the Phelps’ speech does not hurt, that speech is ok precisely because it is merely speech and speaking on an issue, in this case, gays in the military, and therefore is legitimate: And being near the funeral merely to reach broad an audience as possible? As if freedom of speech protects not just the speech, but the right to as broad an audience as possible? An almost ludicrous proposition, impairing traditional understandings of the real politic that rights are contingent upon behaviors and situations and do not exist solely upon themselves. The Phelps could speak in a park, or on a commercial street, far away from the funeral‘s time and place, the speech itself isn‘t in question: where and when is. To ground that concern in a right to fan the flames of the press takes free speech expressly near a new and frontiering range requiring specific, central and deliberate adjudication? We can not allow anyone to get publicity by doing anything anywhere: that’s not the point, nor real politic, nor traditional understanding, rights are grounded in behavior, and context.

But is the Phelps speech hateful? “God hates Fags” “Thank God for dead soldiers”, that is undeniably hateful and hurtful, rather than debating and issue oriented: for the arbitrary condemnation, does not explain why it is so: merely the feelings, of errant protagonists in this tragedy. Free speech must rank analytical commentary over invective, as communication. It makes a difference if things are said differently, gently; as in “God does not want people hurting themselves in the Ass” There, the objection to homosexuality explained.

Does it hurt or impair? The thoughts provoked seem so, so biting in condemning Snyder in heaven, as to impair the effect of the funeral. To waste energy deflecting hatred rather than reason, renders speech by style, not content, as well.

According to Chief Justice Roberts, “ The signs reflected Westboro’s condemnation of much in modern society, and it cannot be argued Westboro’s use of speech on public issues was in any way contrived to insulate a personal attack on Snyder from liability.”

Is this true? Aren’t they rather trying to publicize contriving through the press, rather than honest open area? Are they genuinely not marring the funeral, but speaking on a public issue? Because if they are speaking on a public issue then they are not trying to hurt. But “God hates fags” is a personal attack, and not explaining logic or attempting to, a slogan, more than speech, especially since forgiving is based on an awareness of the Kingdom of God. One can’t listen to a funeral, then pass that sign and not have the effect of funeral speech abridged, and the effect of speech, is speech, undoubtedly; one can not disrupt the listener, that is essential to free speech. Even as the hate speech in the media eye isn’t asserting itself, but being against the funeral. I can’t head to funeral, pass those signs, and expect to settle back and enjoy the consolation of panegyric intent. And it is surprising the funeral experiences of the justices do not encompass that activity and sensation. And is there any evidence Gods hatred of fags is not really more logically great sympathy for “fags”?

There is too much collateral damage for this right to hate speech near funerals to exist; same as there may be collateral damage to not searching suspicious knapsacks at subways, or searching people before getting on a train. Speaking on an issue without this collateral damage can only be done in discriminating a place far from the funeral. Then the emphasis is on speech of the funeral, and speech on the issue of Westboro. These people are like drowning out a play.

You can not say, as Roberts does, that speech may be hurtful, but that is OK; when the experience of the funeral may be ruined, and that expression wasted. There is absolutely no recognition or protection or definition of funeral speech as including its prelude of individual preparation, and denouement that absorbs the thought of panegyric expression. Both sides can speak and feel sensations. How can one do so at the expense of the other, is beyond me. It is like setting up a maypole outside a church while the church is in session, impeding people leaving, as the followers of Baal used to do in Rome.

All issue-oriented activist including myself, must be distinguished by the press, to gain that limelight, and as Alito points out, there are numerous naval bases, and naval offices, where such protest may be displayed on funeral days. Their attraction to the press is grounded in hate and hurt, not public debate at all. The majority fails to distinguish it is not the speech that is outrageous, but its proximity to people it hurts. Nor is the logic that death and god is at a different level and metaphysic than material earth with its homosexuals. For as death parts marriage, so there is no homosexuality in heaven, and any allowance of it on earth, a metaphysic rather than truth.

Snyder also may not recover for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. He argues that he was a member of a captive audience at his son’s funeral, but the captive audience doctrine—which has been applied sparingly, see Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U. S. 728, 736– 738; Frisby, supra, at 484–485—should not be expanded to the circumstances here. Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers’ signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself. Pp. 13–14.

This is entirely wrong and crude and insensitive, first of all this case is not just for Snyder: Anyone has a right to not have their stomach churned at funeral, nor think the lingering wisps stained by hatred on the way out. There is also no mention that it is hate. No mention they are playing for the press. No mention they are AIMED at the funeral service, and only unable to hit it more directly because of police. Asserting a lack of disruption is like saying the threat of war or danger offers no anxiety. This cheapens the expression of the funeral, making it not free, but enslaved to pathological notions of a totality to public debate, the supreme court is invested in as nine people having so much power over millions.

The constitution is inclusive of rights. That means it is meant to protect the people, as the case for government includes. Placing protests a thousand feet from funeral speech misunderstands that funeral speech predates free speech, historically, funeral rites, were the emblem of society and what life was formed around.

The court is under a code whereby there is an oath to tell truth, yet the truth of the kingdom of god never acknowledged, so maybe the implicit inherent acknowledgement of The Kingdom of God by funerals, fundamentally treads upon the errant sensibility of what claims today. The whole issue of a funeral: what is and what is not, what appeared and we say bye to, in context of what we must know; somehow that central important expression and thought is not an issue to the justices and has no relation to the public eye. Indeed these are just public issues, the press does not consider or place in the public realm, and what the courts had a chance to free themselves regarding and assert, today.

Alito is much nicer and protective and from N.J. as well. The connection between my views and him, may stem from the oppressed nature of our state leading to a greater sympathy for the oppressed, or some pagan like connection.

Alito: Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived him of that elementary right. They first issued a press release and thus turned Matthew’s funeral into a tumultuous media event. They then appeared at the church, approached as closely as they could without trespassing, and launched a malevolent verbal attack on Matthew and his family at a time of acute emotional vulnerability

That is IT, furthermore:

“Baptist Church’s publicity-seeking strategy. Their press release stated that they were going “to picket the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder” because “God Almighty killed Lance Cpl. Snyder. He died in shame, not honor— for a fag nation cursed by God . . . . Now in Hell—sine die.” Supp. App. in No. 08–1026 (CA4), p. 158a. This announcement guaranteed that Matthew’s funeral would be transformed into a raucous media event and began the wounding process. It is well known that anticipation may heighten the effect of a painful event.“

“The real significance of these new laws (state laws Maryland enacted since to protect funerals) is not that they obviate the need for IIED protection. Rather, their enactment dramatically illustrates the fundamental point that funerals are unique events at which special protection against emotional assaults is in order. At funerals, the emotional well-being of bereaved relatives is particularly vulnerable yes” Way to go Alito.

We can not go through this analysis and ask ourselves why 8 supreme court members missed the right and rites of an panegyric expression to include arriving to and leaving from, as containing vital preparation and mental ritual, as well as that the digestion and settling of the funeral is terribly vital and necessary for the point of the funeral expression to work; this omission, why? Ultimately my view is about protecting speech from speech protesting its speech: a civil protection. The exigent decision could be compared to allowing the enforcement of readers of my essays to read a first and final paragraph disparaging me. Why can’t the court rank the right of speech of a funeral above the right of speech of hate and condemnation, a speech that doesn’t recognize the equalizer of death, nor death’s casting off of appearance, such as homosexuality, as per the next world? The remarkably unsophisticated world we live in is illuminated.
The answer is the government, and press, is unnaturally biased against spiritual understanding and spirituality and that is what funeral speech really is: however you call it, funerals, I believe, assert the kingdom of god, and somehow that makes everything more OK and what it is. The Kingdom of God, however a spirituality understands it, as the being, as denied, as fallen, as less, as subject of, is anathema to a government projected on that complete opposite, a two dimensional world on paper, and not the three dimensional reality about, to apprehend.
If the government interpreted “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” in a simpler more honest form i.e.: if congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, then it may make a law disrespecting an establishment of religion, otherwise they would have used the word “abridge” as towards other rights. What is so hard to believe that there might be an evil religion out to oppress people, even through law they impose on a people? Seems like a classical fear. That is all the first part of the clause is meant to signify. And Congress has been very respectful to religions and haven’t abused them. And the second part, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” just means people may apply what they have learned from religion, to their life, or job; indeed that is point of many religions, to help individuals in the world of sin.
So it is the unfair and gigantic legal misapprehended bias against spirituality that unconsciously drives the mind of most of the supreme court here. This bias is stronger than their mind; because it is reinforced most graciously in a press that chooses to ignore and deny and disparage spiritual reality, at the same time pretending to be speaking the great truth. No, the great truth is that the press, and all of us, are lying, earth has fallen: those are the solemn tones; very close to the ones for individual death.
But I ask again, why can’t the court apprehend a religion might be evil; and that most religions are good. Because the press does not recognize or even give forum to these claims, of the truth of The Kingdom of God, and that is more pressing upon adjudication, than free analysis. Because unless you firmly perceive journalists as in over their head, the daily dominance of expression they project is falsely perceived and influencing, whereas an awareness of the critical absence of The Kingdom of God in journalism, renders their expression moot.

Free speech is not brutal, really, it’s speech, and if it is brutal, it is not particular.