Archive for May, 2014

Prop-o-gand-a in the USA and Rome

May 27, 2014

Chap 3

It is a different beast when Polybius speaks of Greek History. His view describing as wide a world of affairs as possible, reflects his theory, world history is united and related. His account of the Aetolian and Achean league wars, graphically document the factional violence differring Greek History from Rome. But then he cuts to a culture of Arcadian sacred herds, and culture of music, and singing poetry, and customs of hospitality, conflicting with the massacres and confiscations of Arcadian political history. Again the broach between politics and culture is cited, as broad, as between Tribalism and History in Italy. The two party or two faction polities of Greek Cities were all or nothing affairs, with bonds and loyalties greater than citizenry.

But Culturally, Polybius reveals, studying singing was mandatory many years, thus enacting a tradition of education around singing and song; extending into singing contests for each age. Is this wonderful, and tribal custom; or the introduction of state education, its taking of time from the individual, and resulting in artistic, but possibly not construed as productive or benefitting, contests; mirroring our years of education often for jobs that require much less, for which more time would blossom more learning, were not the capstone of knowledge the kingdom of god, and the kìngdoms of god and heaven reigned in by the universe.

Clearly their swapping songs around campfires and mastery of singing, is a sophisticated way of improving society. And yet one wonders the extent of their practice; was it like band practice?

Polybius concludes this anecdote, saying the Cyntheans, suffered the worst factionalism, because they ceased the singing tradition, a singing tradition that was used to compensate for the rocky terrain, and high hills, of the region, that made life difficult enough to require singing to soften the hardship. For those who have ever complained of colorado’s long winters, perhaps culture singing would help. I mean that’s all the lesson poybius offers upon this story of concurrent greek history, with the clear moral, singing is especially needed in harsh terrain. We would be hard pressed to call this propoganda, tending to instructive instead.

He tells the story of Phillip seiging a city, and hearing the concurrent great loss of Rome to Hannibal in the battle of trasimene. In the beginning of the story, there is a carciture of greek political thought constituted as a plan for King Phillip to attacK Italy and so unite Greece, now that Rome was weak, in the striking theatrical light, of taking advantage of a weakened Rome. Then the light shifts to the reasonable light, that whoever wins, Carthage or Rome, will then take over Greece, which History shows did happen; thus creating the real issue of whether to preemptively attack as united greece, Italy. Then a peace conference of warring greeks under Phillip, the Aetolians and Achean leagues decided it wiser, not to, given the immensity of the warring armies in Italy. However, in a speech, this reason was categorized as the wisdom of ceasing war between the greeks, and tending the military, so as to be prepared for the Victor of Italy.

This speech is interesting as it noted how greek can not speak as one voice and not war, but cross the river together, uniting against the barbarians, and preserving their cities. This evokes the call for America;s Republic, as a tacit and cited unity against the indians, more known as the reason for uniting diverse regions as it is now. It is ignorance that we and the world doesnt realize the purpose for our federal government as protecting us from barbarians, precisely as greek with its disjointed cities and shifting leagues, was unable to attain, from menacing tribes all around Greece, that Rome was able to achieve in europe, and America, here. One can look at Greece, and see the attacks upon them, even warlording tribes Lord Byron took on, ruled greece two hundred years ago.

But this subtley leads to the important question of whether a republic, such as here and Rome, clamps down on factional fighting, a city state, or state system, in Greece, was unable to suppress, as the alternative to our effete federal government is a system of fifty state with several regions or leagues, factional fighting. When factions fight, one side becomes or hides behind the government it controls, and so can do whatever it wants; this is the nature of the civilized constitutional state we have. Distant government, policing itself, essentially unchecded by the people it secretly outside history’s eye, or openly, oppresses, structurally provides an opportunity for crime and oppression, as the people don’t have an effective check on the government, when the government polices itself; a problem here, in greece, and rome, historically and currently; which it is very hard to do something about.

But we have to ask does the unifying of states, and curtailment of state rights to diplomacy and treaty, by ending conflict and war between states, in America, and Italy; create the factional violence Greek is marked by, and America and Rome, held off? Is there something about fifty states, all with diplomatic liscence, that will then lead to conflict between states, and then factional viciousness arise within individual states, as the blue ideologies will support eacch other across state lines, as will the red, and so the resources of factions beyond their states, lead to the fomenting and fronting of factions, which as potential organs for regional sympathies, lose a conscience regarding local rule, as has happened in N.J. As local officials are ruled by the statewide democratic machine, they allowed oppressive developments and destruction of natural resource, the local people found very unpopular; simply because local officials, beholden to state party, could not stand up to the interests of greed and money; which in itself, is only explanable by a civilization and history, where higher power manipulates the humans insofar as this higherr power manipulation is neither known, nor noted, and then unable to be stood up to, as governmend and media so too be, and the people rail complain and cry oppression, without uniting or changing through reason, arguing against higher power, without recognizing such. (Change)

One clearly sees, as Polybius turns his attention to the amazing imperial phenonoma of Rome, that Rome was designed for expansion and suceeded by achiveing a hegemony over italian tribes, and not driving them to a different continent; and how that was a moral imperative to their expansion, and why American imperialism beyond california and hawai and alaska, has stopped; you can’t go forward in a native world, when you drove out and exterminated natives, And yet Rome was more duplicitioius than this, in that taking care of the tribes they conquered, they enforced an italian unity, essential to further imperialism. Whereas America had a steady influx of europeans needing land, and providing calvary; also indicating the low density and smaller numbers of the indians, given their nomadic propensity as well.

Chap 2

The History of the Roman Republic is versed in propoganda, or memorialization, far more than America, and in this sense, borders on russian culture, and more so, the specific goals of propoganda one saw in Soviet Russia.

One of the few military losses of Rome’s 800 year republic, was at Cannae, to Hannibal, in the second punic war. Hannibal’s soldiers were men with years in the trade, who had hiked to Italy winning all their preseason battles with gallic and spanish tribes along the way from Spain. They were career soliders, whereas a good chunk of the Roman men were young and conscripted for the emergency that was Hannibal.

The romans had two consuls, or presidents, and would lead at the front, travel with the army, and they would alternate power by the day, if they couldnt agree, so they were both at the front, Fabius, moderate, cautious, grooming troops through highly limited engagements, and Varro, and later mInicus, whose rashness led to the huge loss at Cannae, where Hannibal tricked them, by hiding men in hollows of a field at night, to mabush in the mroning, and positioning his troops, so the romans cut through the center flank, only to be pinched in, for which Hannibal sacrificed the naked gallic troops, and the spaniards, with their national dress of short purple embroidered linen tunics, like miniskirts. The galls believed in fighting naked.

So the lesson, for all to see, was, caution, and prudence wins, for the romans were lured rashly into attacking. Fabius was against it, the rash co-consul, ordered it. And in the previous month, fabius had rescued his co-consul’s army from doon, so Polybius wrote, “How (edit names cautious generals) the forsight, logical thinking and cool calculation of a general, differ from the rashness and bravado of a mere soldier.”

This moral lesson, mirrored the famed roman personality,, as one of prudence, ideally wisdom, and superior logicall reasoning in a spock like detached, and ultimatle ystatist way. The effect of this cultural trailt, of this trait inculcated in every rendition of the story, was really for the roman people to accept things, not complain, wait and see, be conscripted, and so accept the dominion of the roman state. “Prudence” as propoganda, leads to a passive and accepting dispostion to something oppressive. A greater culture would promote, thinking together, and the form for coming up with a plan to get around and combat oppression. Caution, should include, opportunity, and opportunity, success: But this roman homily, isnt about opportunity and triumph over success, but the roman virtues that enable roman perserverance; a perserverance against oppostion, opposition that is psychologically blended as both Rome’s own government, and the Hanniballic North Africa invaders out of Carthage.

Then of course, we must add, the practice of the Roman state, alternating power by the day; is where the wholesome nature of the roman republic comes from, paling though, as it does, before the Gallic and tribal homily of daily noon circles open to all; and promotes, alternating power does, the ideaa change is good, and the household practice, most of all of sharing power, and rotating power. This is thus a housefold homily most of all, and conforms to a householdization, consistent with the state, at odds with Tribal hegemonies, allegiances, and bonds. Alternating power by consuls, as much as a president rules a vice-president, conforms to nursury ryhmes of propiety, and sinister social ways of corrupted older teens, where a dominance and subservience is assumed between friends. Sharing, is in the way, of property ownership, which is in the way of tribal understandings, which have been subverted by democratic/communistic movements, in the classical, and modern world. Both had essential subversions of humane tenddencies by organization for the people, like the office of tribune, and political parties, and judges, by this reckoning, that essentially acted against the people, allowing republicans and patricians, with their military ties, to prevail, far too often.

The cultural effect of the galls fighting naked would be an intrinsic resistance to civillizing influences. A national dress for the spaniards, would translate into a spanish uniformity. Unifomity can be used to conform good, or conform evil.

Romulus and Regulus, were raised by shephed parents on the river tiber, and became juvenile deliquents rallying others to break the bonds of their senrios, and brigand with Romulus and Regulus. This rough nontribal upbringing,, by negligient outcast parents is actually a very humbling myth or story, reminding romans, they come, not from a tribe, or rather, community structure, but bad negligient parents, who let them form juvenile deliquents, that go on to conquer the tribes, their brigadier friends came from. This inauspicion makes it very humble to be Roman, and in a wholesome way, inclucates the famous part of their personality, of humility, moderation; always at odds with their self-considerations of their military prowess.

Chap 1

Gonna show a quick comparison between   propoganda the white house puts out on its whitehouse website description or explanation of The Constitution of the United States;  and Cicero’s writings. This will show how similiar the historical culture of the two are; as well as pivotal differences:

For instance, in Rome, only the rich were allowed to be senators, something originally defined as a class, presumably with a better section of the city. Thus therefore,  Cicero’s glorification of past Roman generals, is grounded in the notion theìr greatness comes from serving the state. This is psychologically deconstructed as,  remaining from the law, only the patrician class can be senators, and therefore this service, makes Rome, greater and greater. Rome’s greatness stems  from its wealthier citizens, controlling society, and making Rome greater; fairly easy to see self-serving propoganda by and for the ruling class, outright positing their republic’s greatness on the legal assertion of superiority being associated with wealth and property. 

Does our polity still lean this way? Why don’t we know, one proposal at the great constitutional convention, was a senator or two from each trade, representing states and the people. Alexander Hamilton, argued against this logic, that mercantilists, owing an allegiance to no trade soley, were better suited to represent the republic. This country would be better off, if people skilled in production, had more sway.

Roman propoganda is about the superiority of the rich, and how only allowing the rich to hold office, led to the greatness of the roman republic. American Propoganda is not an assertive one, but a passive ignorance, that the way our government is, was designed in large part, to take land from the indians. Our propoganda merges with Rome’s also in an ignorance that a government policing itself, enables people behind the government to enact systemic crime without fear of government.

Cicerro starts On the Common Wealth: “without a sense of public duty, Manius Curius, Gaius Fabricus and Tiberious Coruncanicus, would not have freed Italy from the attack of pyrrhus….Duelius, Atilius, and Mettellus would have not banished the fear of Carthage….without it, the two Scipios, would not have quenched with their own blood the rising fire of the second punic war.”

“The need and love for noble actions, which nature has given to men so they may defend the common weal, are so compelling that they have overcome all the enticements of pleasure…” for those who believe in the challenges of state, rather than a life of ease.

“Noble Actions” are essentially military behaviors to essentially and consistently, expand the Roman Republic. And yet the sentence can be construed to compell any noble actions that defend the common weal. Thus, literarily understanding the concentration of power in patricians, as facilitating immoral greedy and foolish crime; insofar the patricians were not really policed, being the only class allowed to serve Government, for which the Propoganda of Cicero, and the sense of serving your country, militarily, as a public servant, or patriot,, subverted and hard as that is, is derived.

The notion of a formal state, being greater than, an individual, so close to military culture, implying a potential and actual conduit of military dominance of civilian government, is understood as the concept taking the tribesman from his tribe, and putting him in a state. This equation, is negative to sensibility enough to encompass this consumption of government. Thus the same cultural spirit, that dominates ancient Egypt, as National Socialism, exists in Rome, as obesiance to the state, and for and by the upper class, as well, this last implying a greater òppression of the upper class. And in America this is most seen in an enforced education, that takes the ultimate responsibility of rearing and parenting, and putting a very large proportion of that in the literal hourly regulation of minors and so family, through school.

Cicero’s virtue of government service, ignores tribal community circles, in amplifying the value of extensive and distant state. He goes on the believe in the power of great laws, to enforce good behavior, to the benefit of all, citing one philosopher’s greatness, as teaching students the reasons for particular good laws. In other words, laws enforce the training he teaches. This loses sight that training, the acting for good effects in a way not necessarily intuitive, explains the principles behind its withholdings and expenditures; there should be no enforcement of good laws in theory, without reasons being easily understandible. I believe that is the principle of our ninth amendment, if a right is denied or disparaged, it must be retained; and such retention, would naturally involve the explanations for its principles of reform or order.. This overarched philosophy, of Cicero’s understanding, good laws, handed down from the upper class, will create a good society in general, is propoganda justifying the superiority of the upper class; something most humble people know, is often the oposite. Sterling’s condemnation of Blacks, must be discussed. What is he worried about? Does his anxiety stem from violence to women from black males; Whatever the catalyst, this needs discussion and reason, not repression, and sweeping under the rug with strong discipline; yet any discussion of racial anxieties and conversion to harmonies, might threaten to expose the NBA as promoting anxieties, more than harmonies. Likewise, what was causing Eliot Rodgers anxieties towards women? A society that cream puffs intimiacy, and overvalues sex, to the exact loss of more positive and meaningful qualities and concern? And yet again, why would and did Kate Hudson go out with Alex Rodriguez? Honestly, what is possible there. One wants so much to ask her. And what would her answer be? It’s a discussion that requires answers, and not sweeping questions, anxieties and discussion, under the rug.

Cicero’s case, that statesmen are superior to teachers, as the former compell a good behavior from many, while teachers can only teach, a few, is based on the risky supposition of enforcing behavior without explaining it; something civilization grounds its one way street from tribalism, exactly in. Yet it is historically clothed in a dominance of the upper class as an evil propogater; conversely free the lower class from a pressure-packed scrutiny, and effectively making the upper class, almost buffoonish, in their false justifications. It is tautological and self-reifying; Cicero: “we are powerfully moved to increase the resources of the human race, since we desire by our planning and toiling to make life safer and richer”.

While this ignores the logic of tribal peace, increasing the resources of the human race, is a thin disguise for increasing the population, and this supposition merges with the fact, there is a material wealth to civilization, prima facie inexplicable across the grain of logic, civilization is. But that’s the deal. A decrease is sensibility, for an increase in material wonder, ambiguos if it is. …”since we are spurred on to this agreeable task, by nature herself, let us perservere in that course, ever chosen by the best of men.”

Cicero assumes the state is the only source for justice, shame, common law, morality, reverence. Whereas community and the people engender such superiorly to what has been demonstrated by History in the past, and we are all a part of; difficult as it is to talk about, means we must start with me, and accepting the initiation of dialogue on world history as a plannable thing, derived with references like this.

Cicero says brave good politicians, would sooner die for their country, than grow old. This is the modern mantra for necessary wars today as well.
He then cites greek histories with their exiles and bipolar dysfunctions, where Themosticles, and other exiles, always found work for the traditional enemy Persia, to compare Rome favorably to. The greeks were more understanding of the desperate quality to good culture, and more open-minded, in good and bad ways.



” The need for the Constitution grew out of problems with the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, and vested most power in a Congress of the Confederation. This power was, however, extremely limited — the central government conducted diplomacy and made war, set weights and measures, and was the final arbiter of disputes between the states. Crucially, it could not raise any funds itself, and was entirely dependent on the states themselves for the money necessary to operate. Each state sent a delegation of between two and seven members to the Congress, and they voted as a bloc with each state getting one vote. But any decision of consequence required a unanimous vote, which led to a government that was paralyzed and ineffectual.A movement to reform the Articles began, and invitations to attend a convention in Philadelphia to discuss changes to the Articles were sent to the state legislatures in 1787. In May of that year, delegates from 12 of the 13 states (Rhode Island sent no representatives) convened in Philadelphia to begin the work of redesigning government. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention quickly began work on drafting a new Constitution for the United States.”

This is just not true. The number one reason for a constitution of the united states, according to the Federalist Papers, their prime proponent, was to unite the states in defense of the indians and europeans. The second reason, and less urgent reason, was to make conflict between the states impossible. Those were and are the main reason for the negative of the United States government; a subservience to unity in war, and binding of state autonomy from state conflicts.

Additionally, Patrick Henry argued, post war events the decade before the convention, did not merit such amputation of state autonomy, or swaddling of defense resources in one centràl organization; that that decade of 1780’s was a great prosperous decade, with a great feeling to it; that the shift from confederacy to federal government, was a greater shift than the freeing of ourselves from Britain; while their was minor conflict between militias of Pennsylvania and Connecticut, and Shay’s Rebellion, demanding promised veteran’s benefits, did cause concern, these weren’t big deals, and the federal government ending up making conditions worse. The only example of disorder requiring a federal government given by this current government was funding. And yet look how today government funding is out of control. Many states did not want a standing army. Look at militaries now. Nor did the U.S. Constitution pass state conventions by anything but narrow margins.

The notion funding issues caused the Constitution, is false, by its greatest advocates who said the main reason is a united defense, and states friendly to each other, and no tarrifs.m

” According to the Federalist Papers, which makes the case for a federal government in 1788, the six main reasons for a federal government are following in order of importance.1) To stop States from warring each other over disputed Territories.2) To provide a large Navy so England, France and Spain wouldn’t abuse us.3) So that states which goods are transported through will not impose duties, imposts, and levies on trade passing through.4) So that states don’t compete with each other foolishly in trade pacts with Europe.5) So that the federal government can directly raise an army, rather than each state contributing men.6) To be able to quell insurrections in states, should they happen.” {from above}

So let’s examine this propoganda relegating the debate over whether and what kind of constitution the states and people should have, to an issue of government funding? “They” don’t want you to recognize most of the above reasons are outdated. The information, that our cause, ended to the degree, the indian worry ended; would have us change our constitution; as much as its notable flaws of concentrating power to protect crime, and unleasing the designed might of the United States, threateningly, upon the world.

This isn’t the passionate, psuedo moralistic fervor of roman cicero, singing paeans to the state. This is cold clinical propòganda; a little thing; the reason for our constitution; they shifted from a united defense, to funding issues; nor much discussion of what specifically triggered the need for this constitution. Was it rolled up in the war deal itself? Was the constitution this way, the effect of the well-known momentum from war?

Cicero is offering his countrymen and readers moralistic fervor bottled in government ideals, passion, for justice, and righteousness, even if deviously directed. There’s no passion coming from cold dry america and its whitehouse, while the people are the best, the regulations of school and capitalism, the restrictions on communities thinking together by local officials, the inhibition and scarcity upon diverse religions; it’s neither fun, nor holy, but sacrifice in civilization’s veil.

Cicero in upper class bluster, conveys it’s fun and ideally righteous to be roman, and roman government, that spirit-style exists in the interactions of americans; this white house lie, is simply about misinforming you, and keeping the origins and causes of your government secret; because if you knew, you would change its structure; it’s so stark as to not allow the whitehouse to be honest regarding the constitution’s reason’s, because people would know the indians are no longer a threat. You would see how this country was designed to run through indian land, and that goal, past. Phrased right, you might see what a great mistake it was to not get along with indians, give them whole states or regions, and interact with, not destroy, their culture.

The irony-connundrum, is an accurate whitehouse explanation of our constitution, would effectively disprove it. Our government has not been that honest, as government, long a force, for-itself. What makes it for-iteself, has gone on a long time, and not giving up. Any real discussion of this, commences with the rarety of this issue being raised, and from there, a praxis to world history. What it is, is we are men of sin, to be led out of terror by a little light.

” A chief aim of the Constitution as drafted by the Convention was to create a government with enough power to act on a national level, but without so much power that fundamental rights would be at risk. One way that this was accomplished was to separate the power of government into three branches, and then to include checks and balances on those powers to assure that no one branch of government gained supremacy. This concern arose largely out of the experience that the delegates had with the King of England and his powerful Parliament. ”

Let’s deconstruct this statement. First, the checks and balances of government branches, fundamentally and inescapably, involves government policing itself, and at many levels and instances, this does not work, or even make sense from a structural stand point, and the main problem with the constitution, is enforcing its laws, which in turn, requires stepping over a three branch system, that has fundamentally, repeatedly worked to purposefully not do so. In this sense, as government created to protect and enable criminal structures that operate without regard to laws, as laws need not be enforced upon those more powerful and committed than government. Thus our complaints regarding England, were wealthy people complaining of British power and people, enabling corruption through government, and not a form of government itself. I am not sure there is evidence, oppression of America, by the British, was posited on a king system, or british system of government, but an imperialism known to various forms of government, throughout history.

Again, this second paragraph from the whitehouse, continues the impressive considerable propoganda that government can police itself. And this is a huge issue. Any reform of government must clearly see government can not police itself. Power must be diffused to more overcome crime and corruption

“Two plans competed to become the new government: the Virginia Plan, which apportioned representation based on the population of each state, and the New Jersey plan, which gave each state an equal vote in Congress. The Virginia Plan was supported by the larger states, and the New Jersey plan preferred by the smaller. In the end, they settled on the Great Compromise (sometimes called the Connecticut Compromise), in which the House of Representatives would represent the people as apportioned by population; the Senate would represent the states apportioned equally; and the President would be elected by the Electoral College. The plan also called for an independent judiciary.”

This is a gross reduction of the jersey plan insofar it ignores the Jersey Plan allowed treaties between states, trade pacts; this the virginia plan was against, and the effect, I think, was negative upon the economy, and quality of culture. Moreso, the federal judiciary, was limited, under the jersey plan, to the approval of these state pacts, as well as treaties made by the federal government. This is a substantively liberal creation of a judiciary. The state judiciaries, would handle most crime if not all, as the jersey plan did not make the federal judiciary concerned with crime, but moral relations between states, and states and countries, as where a judiciary should go, to check states free to make pacts and treaties with each other.

First the virginia plan: ” The “Virginia Plan” specifically spells out five items necessarily intrinsic to the constitution. Protection against foreign invasion. Eliminating war and tension between the states. Secure a peacetime prosperity. Prevent internal insurrection. “Be paramount to state u

The Virginians objection to the confederacy included the havoc of different paper monies, inability to raise funds and soldiers, foreign debts, insurrection in Massachusetts: Citing an inability to legally unite in war, a lack of primacy hindering peace between the states, and failure towards the stated goals of the confederacy, “common defense, security of liberty and general welfare.”” from

“The Virginia Plan advocated individuals electing their representatives. Others claimed the people would be ill informed, nor to be so much about government. Mr. Gerry, “The people do not want virtue but are the dupes of pretended patriots.” Thus state legislatures should decide their national representatives.Mr Mason, of Virginia, argued that general elections would enable the lower classes to represent localities, and this would create a greater and more dynamic lower house. Mr Wilson took it even further, arguing for a mandate guaranteeing the lower classes places in the lower house. This would increase confidence in the nation. Confidence is essential. State legislatures should not have more power. ”

Roman propoganda extolls a greatness to the state by extolling the concept of representative democracy whereby theoretically superior people rule lesser people to an overall greatness of reputation of state. They also frame this in context of kings, rather than tribal community local rule.

“Hence because they could not bear the rule of kings, they made the chief magistracy annual and created two magistrates with military authority. They were called “consuls” from the verb meaning to consult, not “kings” from the verb, “to reign”.”…….But the act Valerius. …showed himself to be a friend of the people…was the law…prohibiting, …executing or flogging….without permitting an appeal to the centuries” The centuries were peaceful assemblies of honored soldiers to make decisions with ayes and nays..

“Publico, was a man of no mean ability since he made it easier to maintain the authority of the nobility, by giving freedom in moderation to the people.” ; a nice political process, but paling before a sopisticated and working and thinking together people and community.

American propoganda ignores the federal government is grounded in uniting the states against the Indicans. American propoganda covers up where this land comes from, and tribal understandings. American propoganda obscures that states do not have diplomatic powers, because such might have confused or subverted “manifest destiny” of taking land from native tribes, (as Rome did to Italian tribes)


We are bound to note, how the people and public knowledge conform to the propoganda put out on the white house annotated website. In this act, while consistent with thusly implicated textbooks, the white house shows how effortlessly, and deceptively, government, and media, blur.

The direct correllation between official information and public knowledge, disturbing. Liberals nor conservatives care about our recent history with “indians”. The people aren’t aware of structural shortcomings in our constitution; particular, they are. So why haven’t the people found out, nor the knowledge disseminated? Well, that is exactly the mechanical nature of man, in this post-mechanical age, who must be led from sin with light, this light, of course establish what we are talking about, since we are such a product of world history, this dialgoue becomes incorporated in world history.

From here can be a very interesting discussion.

Everything conforms to propoganda; Rome’s senate provided and honored military heroes and consuls, for hundreds of years, unchecked and undiverted. Americans don’t recognize the moral issue with the native tribes. The government has yet to free itself to announce its faults. The notion government is the strongest force and can stand up to the nefarious and outright influences upon it, is easily seen as unsound, and yet the illusion government can stop crime,, particularily by the powerful, is acted upon everyday.. The senators could get away with a lot, there can be no tears for the all the tribes once roamed and settled, for 1200 years beyond the dark ages’s destruction of the classicism of tribal backdrop of europe and around the mediterraen.

In both cases the control is absolute; as if, and truly, agreed upon to go down on the human race, in the past; we were given up and sold a bill of goods.


Now the glorification of the rich as leading rome to greatness and the obscuring of the moral issue of taking land from native tribes, are two different kinds of propoganda.
One is assertion, the other, an ignoring. So those are two different natures.

Before I get into the nature of this difference, let me say, both Rome and the USA, merge in the passive propoganda of obscuring how government policing itself, allows networks to hide behind government and oppress, and even kill, and steal, and that’s an issue to constitutional republics everywhere.

Let me also say, both American and Roman propoganda, are in the obscuring, ignoring business, as the relegate and dismiss tribal understandings, and also to an extent, deceptively replace pagan tribal understandings with idealizations of government and government service, in a removed from the people, distant, government that has little check upon its total by the people.

The assertion of the superiority of the patrician class, over the plebian class, as an assertion, is not prima facea believable. And yet, the belief and veneration of our founders as creating a perfect government, for some reason, is believable. The ignorance, the binding of states, and altering of articles of confederation into constitution, was to facilitate land from indians, is trickier to disbelieve, because it is not an assertion, but an ignoring.

Christianity, positing its service and terms as countering government service and terminology, would assume, salvation, a community based on truth, truth of the kingdom of god, is possible, by virtue of its service, by virtue of an applying congregation, and christian scholarship. And yet, this break from historical reality, is more likely in the pagan roman republic by the plebes, precisely because the puffing up of the superiority of the rich, flies in the face of experience, so to speak.

The old testament, in assertion of judeasm, jewish history, as part of its very specific focus on Hebrew history, is the property of ignorance, obscuring the pagan pantheon judeasm replaces. Anytime, one set of information, effectively replaces another, this is the propoganda grounded in not allowing certain information, or conflicting understandings.

This propoganda that ignores, that replaces, without referencing what it replaces, is more difficult to overcome than that of assertion.

We revere our founders, despite their creation of a federal government with scant checks on it by the state or the people, perhaps because our propoganda we are a classless society, at least compared to the roman republic when it limited public office to the rich, effectively ends the lower class looking down on the upper classes, as those required bonds, bound in a tribal tradition rome incorporated or was incorporated by, we don’t have.

The severe two class division of rome, enables a salvation, grounded in tribal paganism, unknown to history, that America doesn’t have.

Thus a class system with spiritual and community diversity, is more effective, than the countering service of organized religion, or our own bible studies.

In the propoganda of ommission, of taking land from tribes, of the pagan pantheon, of ignoring known alternatives, is difficult as it creates a void or false substance of our mind, without alternative, so that is all there is for our mind to rely on, given the currents of media.

This in turn shows, how limited and restricted our mind is, by propoganda. The same mind that fuels and puts out propoganda, is in our mind, limiting itself by its chosen dictates of propoganda. A discussion of this, shows, we are directly limited by propoganda, unable to think, outside propoganda, official, cherished, propoganda. Why is this, and how to combat it, becomes the next issue.

It would seem there are two types of people. Now there are three issues I like to discuss with people. Propoganda, and why and how it has its effect on you. The kingdom of god’s tragic nature. And how to stop, check and control the evil flowing through society through our media primarily, but people in power secondarily, and people in general, tertiarily.

But there are two types to discourse with. 1) The people, and 2) Journalists, media people; officials, government, people with power,; and their oppressed minions. The second, is where bad things mostly flow through, onto our tv screens, soaking our investment in leadership with status quo, and violations. Less bad things enemate from the people, than TV, government, and those behind that. Because of that, those in power are distant from the people, and also less capable of the humanity required to check evil, or rather, less possessive of the humanity that would reduce their involvement in their dirty work. It’s two different divisions, an unaccesible and inferior division of power; and a more accessible superior, yet less potent and empowered, division of the people. Nevertheless, the message is basically the same; bad things flow by design, because we are the kingdom of god, camouflaged it may be, and if we recognize we are the kingdom of god, then we can check this impulse and stealth upon us by evil.

Regarding propoganda, it is very interesting also; officials and anchors, law enforcement and judges, senators and aids, editors and rich people, must see through the propoganda, because what the propoganda hides is applied upon them to oppress them, others, they must know, government isnt the strongest power, judges and law enforcement co-opted by stronger power, and thin veneer of crime, be right behind the appearance of law and order society. Whereas the people who dont know this yet, are marks and dupes to be hurt and exploited through constitutional design allowing this oppression. Again, for this, the official category has more control upon it than the people, and thus discussing real politic with the empowered is difficult to attain.

Regarding expressing the tragedy of the kingdom of god, and cognating such apprehension, the two classes would seem together.

In Rome, evil flows through History deciding upon the higher class. In America, more through contemporary journalism. Regarding, propoganda, as said, the historical are aware of it, but inaccesible bt in some literary world unto themselves, and the lower classes freer fromit and under pagan tribal remnants, possibly able to manifest class seperation into a secret greater freedom.

When Cicero’s charactors are talking in the courtyard of their upper class country estate, and says how on the battle field, one is looked up to as the superior warrior; and yet, in the courtyard, the other is looked up to, being the elder; one is reminded of Roman constitent supremecy in war. One theory is that they had a greater military culture than the surrounding
Italian tribes, and by marching out to the contours of their hegemony, and invading, the marching, or the armies roaming, engendered a superiority. Hannibal took Italy by storm because he marched there from spain. Pro athletes are so good, because they literally play more basketball games in a year than me. Veteran warring soldiers are superior to young recruits. The roman polity so effficiently roamed italy, by an efficient and constitutional regulation of the army, the story of romulus and regulus, symbolic-manifest; The romans had forced marches, and unforced. Most were unforced. The unforced marches could be well under ten miles a day, and straggling and chatting with the locals you pass, ok, and promoted by the policy of straggling on unforced marches, allowed, just show up at the camp by sunset. Whereas forced marches could be over 15 miles, and regulated by brief and infrequent breaks; This sort of regulation of marching, is universal. And the romans had it down so pat to a milisecond of technique and through, they routinely prevailed in battle.

The other theory is the classical world, did have christs. That that is where the word christ comes from. These christs marched with the army, asserted the kingdom of god, saw the manifest destiny of rome, explained the metaphysic, and thus enabled a secret nonviolent victorious policy.

Now the great crime to constitutional republics is this; they make the government distant from the people, involve few, compared to the distribution of power of the tribal systems it replaces, and essentially only the government polices itself; this check and balance of branches, ridiculous; as the people are hurt by government egress, and so the people should police the government. It’s more important the government is fit, than the people, because the government has the power to do way more damage. Furthermore, networks of crime, such as political parties, can hide behind the government, where jobs are dependant upon going along, and get away with anything, being of more numerous and earnest vow than a few county judges, who grew vulnerable to this system. This is really what went on behind and the cause for the scene of government in athens, rome, and america; though not a part of history, nearly as much as propoganda. For then the whole controversy would stop. A controversy very much requiring spiritualiity, and understanding of metaphysics,’ duration and magnitude.

Thus, the question becomes, is the mechanics one, where the oligarthic nobles are the evil ones, capable of manifesting greed, at the expense of the good of their country? Or is that the work of criminals secretly behind them, in a lawless world, controlling their families, as serfs might take over a noble’s estate and in the isolation, change positions, while outwardly conforming to public view; or where a democratic party can tell businesses what to do; or where a military can tell senators, what to do. This is foil to spiritual explanations, required to turn this boat around.

Let me attempt to categorize and itemize some questionable american claims, to see, how we think we know something, but we don’t.

1. Petition the government for redress of grievance is a very sacred right to ask the government through the judiciary to do something to redress your grievance. I said so to answer a scotus form question, and it was accepted. The right to collect signatures is bs. The right for one mere man to ask the government to do something, truly great.

2.) Capitalism isn’t the wisest thing to get things done; thinking together, community, is.

3) Peaceful Assembly is how and where local decisions are made by all present with ayes and nays; it is not a protest, it is a historically accepted and practiced and cofied natural form of local rule. Casting such as a protest, is showing a similiar connotation of the right of the people to change things, within reason, being shift to the right to ineffectively protest.

4) A first amendment not allowing congress to make a law respecting a religion, leaves open the way for a law disrespecting a religion. This is consistent with the roman republic liscencing the myriad of religions and sects back then, and recognizing that one percent of the religions might not be up to the wholesome of roman par.

USA Pts, prop petitions, prop cap, favorites, also Peaceful assembly……hey disrespect religion.