http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_1. Catullus’s letter to Cornelius. Latin with English translation.

Cui dono lepidum novum labellum, To whom do I dedicate this new, charming little book, Arida modo pumice expolitum, just now polished with a dry pumice stone? Corneli tibi namque tu solebas, To you, Cornelius, for you were accustomed, meas esse aliquid putare nugas, to think that my nonsense was something, iam tum cum ausus es unus Italorum, then already when you alone of Italians, omne aevum tribus explicare cartis, dared to unfold every age in three papyrus rolls, doctis Iuppiter et laboriosis, learned, Jupiter, and full of labor. Quare habe tibi quidquid hoc libelli, Therefore, have for yourself whatever this is of a little book, ualecumque quod o patrona virgo of whatever sort; which, O patron maiden, plus uno maneat perenne saeclo, may it remain everlasting, more than one lifetime.

Roshan Kumari, Kathak. Movie, Jalshaghar or the Music room.

What would world disarmament have meant for the Europe of Hitler? Satyagraha of MK Gandhi; truthful labor in service of humanity.

Causes of World War II: Susan Heep, Pinterest.

Geneva Disarmament Conference 1932

“This was a success for Hitler because: a. it wrecked the conference b. it left him free to rearm however he wanted c. it drove a wedge between the French and the British d. British politicians, while they were trying to persuade Germany to stay in the Conference, had agreed in principle that the arms clauses of the Treaty of Versailles were too harsh.”

Prelude to World War II and the Partition of British India

Hitler’s virulent anti-Semitism had, since 1933, helped fuel his rise to dictatorial power over Europe, whose aggressive expansion into defenseless Czechoslovakia in 1938 was sanctioned by Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain at Munich. On the eve of World War II Chamberlain spoke of his pathetic betrayal as “Peace with Honour” claiming it would bring ‘peace in our time’ Gandhi when asked what he thought about the persecution of Jews, replied, “My sympathies are all with the Jews. The tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler. Gandhi expressed his tacit support of Chamberlain’s policy and called for simultaneous world disarmament: “I am as certain of it as I am sitting here, that this heroic act would open Herr Hitler’s eyes and disarm him.” To Agatha Harrison he wrote “My participation in the event of war would be no participation.”  Gandhi’s Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi, By Stanley Wolpert. 

  The 14th Dalai Lama’s Acceptance Speech, on the occasion of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, December 10, 1989.

A universal call for disarmament
I am very happy to be here with you today to receive the Nobel Prize for Peace. I feel honored, humbled and deeply moved that you should give this important prize to a simple monk from Tibet. I am no one special. But, I believe the prize is a recognition of the true values of altruism, love, compassion and nonviolence which I try to practice, in accordance with the teachings of the Buddha and the great sages of India and Tibet.  I accept it as a tribute to the man who founded the modern tradition of nonviolent action for change – Mahatma Gandhi – whose life taught and inspired me. And, of course, I accept it on behalf of the six million Tibetan people, my brave countrymen and women inside Tibet, who have suffered and continue to suffer so much. They confront a calculated and systematic strategy aimed at the destruction of their national and cultural identities. The prize reaffirms our conviction that with truth, courage and determination as our weapons, Tibet will be liberated. I speak to inform you of the sad situation in my country today and of the aspirations of my people, because in our struggle for freedom, truth is the only weapon we possess. War today would be a form of suicide.

Politically correct pedagogy, A Sovereign Citizen. What..

 

I write about sovereigns, tax defiers and anti-government extremists.  

On February 6, the Federal Bureau of Investigation held a news conference about a growing problem faced by local law enforcement agencies.   According to the FBI, police all around the country have been contacting the Bureau with requests for information and training on the sovereign citizen movement.

Over the next week, the online reaction to the Bureau’s statements ranged from confused to outraged. Conservative pundits were wringing their hands, fearing that the FBI is going to target their Tea Party readership as enemies of the state, while liberal pundits expressed glee that the FBI now considers Tea Party supporters to be domestic terrorists.

For example, conservative commentator Glenn Beck aired a 12-minute segment on his show last week in which he concluded that there is no such thing as a sovereign movement, since he’s never heard of it, and that the government is using this fictional group as a boogeyman in order to do nefarious things to Glenn Beck’s fans.

 “I’m in the news business. I don’t even know who they are. Sovereign citizens?” — Glenn Beck

Alas, Mr. Beck, sovereign citizens do indeed exist. And sorry, both sides of the political battle field, they aren’t the Tea Party.

The good news for Beck is that the overlap between his fan base and the sovereign movement is probably minor. The bad news for the rest of us is that state and local law enforcement agencies are having a heck of time educating their officers about how best to identify and deal with this very real and potentially violent group.

So what’s the definition?

The short answer:  a sovereign citizen is someone who believes that he or she is above all laws.

The long answer is a bit more complex.

Think about a law you don’t like. Any law, at any level of government. It can be a big law, like paying income taxes, or a tiny one, like licensing your pet Chihuahua with the county.

If you’re a member of the Tea Party movement, the solution to this bad law is to protest your opinion in DC and in other metropolitan areas, write angry letters to your Congressmen, and vote for politicians who agree with you that such a law should be scrapped as soon as possible.

If you’re a member of the sovereign citizen movement, your approach is a bit different. You start by looking for a combination of quotes, definitions, court cases, the Bible, Internet websites, and so on that justify how you can ignore the disliked law without any legal consequences. Be imaginative. Pull a line from the 1215 version of the Magna Carta, a definition from a 1913 legal dictionary, a quote from a founding father or two, and put it in the blender with some official-sounding Supreme Court case excerpts you found on like-minded websites. Better yet, find someone else online who disliked that same law and pay them $150 for a three-ring binder filled with their word salad research.

Et voilà, not only have you proven that you don’t have to obey the law you dislike, heck, it’s your patriotic duty to disobey it, and anyone who tells you otherwise is just plain un-American and is probably part of a world-wide Jewish conspiracy to ensure that Chihuahuas are slaves to the US government.

When you can pick and choose which laws to put through your special blender, you are effectively putting yourself above all laws.

So why are they a problem for state and local police?

Sovereign citizens are true believers. They generally entered the movement by buying into a scam or conspiracy theory that not only promised them a quick fix to their problems, but wrapped such solutions in a heavy layer of revolutionary rhetoric. Once a sovereign feels the flush of excitement and self-importance that comes from acting as the David to the U.S. government’s Goliath, they know, with all of their hearts and souls, that their research is correct, that their cause is just, and that anyone who disagrees with them is a criminal who deserves to be punished.

These sovereign citizens are also doomed to failure; the tax collector, prosecutor, and judge have all heard these same legal theories dozens of times already and understand that they are bogus.

When a person believes his cause is just, yet he meets failure over and over and over again, there comes a point where he has to make a decision: he can admit his theory is wrong and walk away, or he can fight dirty.

Non-violent retaliation against government employees and law enforcement is the most common response, and can take the form of filing false liens, filing bogus Forms 1099, sending threatening correspondence, suing government employees for millions of dollars, and cyber-stalking individuals in government who disagree with the sovereign’s legal theories.

Some sovereigns plot a violent revenge, hoping to inspire others in the movement to reach their breaking point sooner. For example, after twenty years of attempting to persuade the IRS and the Tax Court that his blender salad of legal theories was accurate, in 2010, private pilot Joseph Stack flew his airplane into an IRS building in Austin Texas, killing one tax collector, and injuring thirteen others.

“I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.” — Joseph Stack’s suicide note

Other such planned events have included bombings, shootings, m urders, and armed standoffs.

Most sovereigns who act violently, however, have no grand plan in place; they simply lash out when they’ve failed one too many times. Some commit suicide, but for most of them, the final straw can be something as small as being pulled over by a highway patrolman for having a busted tail light or something as big as being evicted from their home when the bank forecloses on their property.

Since most people don’t have any direct contact with government other than with local law enforcement, officers are at a particularly high risk of bearing the brunt of sovereign citizen anger.

Why do officers need training?

On the surface, sovereigns believe some pretty outrageous things, and to an outsider, their legal theories seem fairly silly. Up until the recent wave of violence, most police officers who encountered sovereigns found them more amusing than anything else. Following recent police shootings in Arkansas, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania, officers now need to rethink their opinion of this group.

Also, sovereign citizens don’t call themselves that. In fact, if you ask a person if she is a member of the movement, she is likely to respond that the “sovereign citizen” label is an oxymoron, and that she is an individual seeking the Truth. She may then launch into a ten minute lecture about 18th century ideals of individual sovereignty. A non-sovereign simply answers, “No.”

Perhaps the most difficult hurdle for law enforcement is dealing with stereotypes. The first generation sovereign movement (from 1970 to 1995) was comprised mostly of middle-aged, high-school educated, white men with some military background, and extreme-right, often racist values, located mostly in in rural communities west of the Mississippi. Today, the second sovereign wave (1999 to present) can include anybody: black, white, rural, urban, Asian, Hispanic, young, old, armed, unarmed, male, female, conservative, liberal, semi-literate, college-educated, from any walk of life. For example, dentists, chiropractors, and even police officers all seem drawn to the movement in recent years.

Sovereigns are also difficult to identity because there is no membership group for them to join, no charismatic leader, no organization name, no master list of adherents, and no consistency in the schemes they promote and buy into. There are hundreds of sovereign legal theories being peddled in seminars, in books, and on the Internet, and many of these theories contradict each other.

Conclusion

The sovereign citizen movement is big and is growing fast, thanks to the Internet. There are an estimated 300,000 people in the movement, and approximately one third of these are what I would call hard-core believers – people willing to act on their beliefs rather than simply walk away.

While there is no guarantee when it comes to officer safety, police departments do indeed need to teach their front-line officers how to identify sovereign markers and take appropriate precautions in case a particular encounter becomes a sovereign’s “final straw.”

Can anyone believe in moral will? Yes when you make trust a friend.

trustistruth

Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none. William Shakespeare.

Trust dies but mistrust blossoms. Sophocles.  

trustisGod

Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/topics/topic_trust.html

Platonic love. Renaissance and the architectural achievements of Brunelleschi, Florence, 15th century AD.

The dome of eternity.

Brunelleschi's SantaMariaFiore, built in Florence during the 15th century.

Brunelleschi’s SantaMariaFiore, built in       Florence during the 15th century.

Philosophical Context

The concept of universal harmony as it was understood during the Renaissance originated with Pythagorean and Platonic proportional systems found in geometry, music, and ultimately, nature (Koenigsberger, p. 173). The ideas of many mathematicians and philosophers were used in Brunelleschi‘s dome and Renaissance building techniques. ―Several examples of conceptions of harmony in theories of art and architecture, and also in suppositions about nature and reality, have been brought forward [by scholars].‖ (Koenigsberger, p. 173). Notions of harmony and beauty are integral aspects of the architecture and art of this period. One of the most important philosophical aspects of the dome is its shape. Although the dome is not a perfect sphere, it is intended to represent one. The spherical shape has many philosophical implications. The sphere is derived form the shape of a circle. The circle has been used to represent several key philosophical ideas in Renaissance culture. The origins of this philosophical context go back to the ancient Greeks, particularly the philosophy of Plato. What is important about the philosophy of the circle is not any particular circular shape. It is the universal idea of the circle that is relevant. There are certain properties that all circles possess. The line that forms a circle continues indefinitely on its prescribed path, symbolizing eternity. Eternity is an important concept in Christianity, so the circle was an important icon in Medieval and Renaissance art. The circle is also associated with God and Heaven, which are eternal according to Christian thought. Anthony Kenny conveys Plato‘s Idea of the circle in a nutshell: ―My subjective concept of the circle — my understanding of what ‗circle‘ means — is not the same as the Idea of the circle, because the Idea is an objective reality that is not the property of any individual mind‖ (p. 50). This statement can be better understood by exploring Plato‘s philosophy of Forms. According to Plato, everything in the physical world is a copy or shadow of a universal Idea. This world of universal Ideas or Forms is ideal and unchanging. The universals are Ideas themselves and the copies of the Ideas in the physical world are referred to as Particulars. One way to approach this philosophy is via Plato‘s cave analogy (cf. 521c-535a of Plato‘s Republic). Plato presented his concept of education by describing a cave in which humans are chained to a wall and cannot move. In front of them is a fire that provides light. Objects in the outside world, which the imprisoned ones cannot see, are reflected as shadows on the wall in front of them, so they can only understand the physical objects outside of the cave as shadows. In the analogy, the real objects outside are the universal Forms, while the shadows of the objects visible inside of the cave are Particulars. So the world of Ideas is more real than the physical world for Plato, but humans are shackled to the physical world, unable to fully experience universal Forms. Plato‘s philosophy parallels the concept of Idealism. The world of Forms is ideal, from which everything in the physical world is a copy. So Plato espouses the idea that the Ideal does exist, but humans cannot fully 6 experience it. Plato‘s philosophy was easily reconcilable with Christian thought during the Renaissance. For Renaissance thinkers, God is part of the ideal world, while humans inhabit the imperfect physical world.

santamariafiore

When a rule of law prevails, the government is not the owner and opinion maker. When tyranny holds sway, it is a slave of dictators.

democracyofancientgreecegloryofancientgreecehttp://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-26-1-plato-and-aristotle-on-tyranny-and-the-rule-of-law.html.

Go to the link above for chapter and verse on how the rule of law came into being and is still the same in definition and condition after millenia. Tyrants learn nothing from law as they become blessed with the ability to abuse power at will and terrorize truth. greece

Self-reliance is the master of independence. Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)

The Importance of Self-Reliance

Emerson begins his major work on individualism by asserting the importance of thinking for oneself rather than meekly accepting other people’s ideas. As in almost all of his work, he promotes individual experience over the knowledge gained from books: “To believe that what is true in your private heart is true for all men — that is genius.” The person who scorns personal intuition and, instead, chooses to rely on others’ opinions lacks the creative power necessary for robust, bold individualism. This absence of conviction results not in different ideas, as this person expects, but in the acceptance of the same ideas — now secondhand thoughts — that this person initially intuited.

The lesson Emerson would have us learn? “Trust thyself,” a motto that ties together this first section of the essay. To rely on others’ judgments is cowardly, without inspiration or hope. A person with self-esteem, on the other hand, exhibits originality and is childlike — unspoiled by selfish needs — yet mature. It is to this adventure of self-trust that Emerson invites us: We are to be guides and adventurers, destined to participate in an act of creation modeled on the classical myth of bringing order out of chaos.

Although we might question his characterizing the self-esteemed individual as childlike, Emerson maintains that children provide models of self-reliant behavior because they are too young to be cynical, hesitant, or hypocritical. He draws an analogy between boys and the idealized individual: Both are masters of self-reliance because they apply their own standards to all they see, and because their loyalties cannot be coerced. This rebellious individualism contrasts with the attitude of cautious adults, who, because they are overly concerned with reputation, approval, and the opinion of others, are always hesitant or unsure; consequently, adults have great difficulty acting spontaneously or genuinely.

Emerson now focuses his attention on the importance of an individual’s resisting pressure to conform to external norms, including those of society, which conspires to defeat self-reliance in its members. The process of so-called “maturing” becomes a process of conforming that Emerson challenges. In the paragraph that begins with the characteristic aphorism “Whoso would be a man, must be a nonconformist,” he asserts a radical, even extreme, position on the matter. Responding to the objection that devotedly following one’s inner voice is wrong because the intuition may be evil, he writes, “No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature . . . the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.” In other words, it is better to be true to an evil nature than to behave “correctly” because of society’s demands or conventions.

The non-conformist in Emerson rejects many of society’s moral sentiments. For example, he claims that an abolitionist should worry more about his or her own family and community at home than about “black folk a thousand miles off,” and he chides people who give money to the poor. “Are they my poor?” he asks. He refuses to support morality through donations to organizations rather than directly to individuals. The concrete act of charity, in other words, is real and superior to abstract or theoretical morality.

In a subdued, even gentle voice, Emerson states that it is better to live truly and obscurely than to have one’s goodness extolled in public. It makes no difference to him whether his actions are praised or ignored. The important thing is to act independently: “What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think . . . the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.” Note that Emerson contrasts the individual to society — “the crowd” — but does not advocate the individual’s physically withdrawing from other people. There is a difference between enjoying solitude and being a social hermit.

Outlining his reasons for objecting to conformity, Emerson asserts that acquiescing to public opinion wastes a person’s life. Those around you never get to know your real personality. Even worse, the time spent maintaining allegiances to “communities of opinion” saps the energy needed in the vital act of creation — the most important activity in our lives — and distracts us from making any unique contribution to society. Conformity corrupts with a falseness that pervades our lives and our every action: “. . . every truth is not quite true.” Finally, followers of public opinion are recognized as hypocrites even by the awkwardness and falsity of their facial expressions.

Shifting the discussion to how the ideal individual is treated, Emerson notes two enemies of the independent thinker: society’s disapproval or scorn, and the individual’s own sense of consistency. Consistency becomes a major theme in the discussion as he shows how it restrains independence and growth.

Although the scorn of “the cultivated classes” is unpleasant, it is, according to Emerson, relatively easy to ignore because it tends to be polite. However, the outrage of the masses is another matter; only the unusually independent person can stand firmly against the rancor of the whole of society.

The urge to remain consistent with past actions and beliefs inhibits the full expression of an individual’s nature. The metaphor of a corpse as the receptacle of memory is a shocking — but apt — image of the individual who is afraid of contradiction. In this vivid image of the “corpse of . . . memory,” Emerson asks why people hold onto old beliefs or positions merely because they have taken these positions in the past. Being obsessed with whether or not you remain constant in your beliefs needlessly drains energy — as does conformity — from the act of living. After all, becoming mature involves the evolution of ideas, which is the wellspring of creativity. It is most important to review constantly and to reevaluate past decisions and opinions, and, if necessary, to escape from old ideas by admitting that they are faulty, just as the biblical Joseph fled from a seducer by leaving his coat in her hands, an image particularly potent in characterizing the pressure to conform as both seductive and degrading.

http://www.academia.edu/702066/Emerson_Thoreau_and_the_Transcendentalist_Movement

Mahatma Gandhi on liquor: To the Moderates. 31 July 1937.

The state does not cater for the vices if its people.

It is criminal to spend the income from the sale of intoxicants on the education of the nation’s children or other public services. The government must overcome the temptation of using such revenue for nation-building purposes. Experience has shown that the moral and physical gain of the abstainer more than makes up for the loss of this tainted revenue. If we eradicate the evil, we will easily find other ways and means of increasing the nation’s income. (Mahatma Gandhi. Harijan. 21 September 1947)