Have you ever noticed the political echoes between the Wizard of Oz and Robespierre? Consider these similarities: 1) In the L. Frank Baum novel, the Wizard of Oz obliges all inhabitants of the Emerald City to wear green-tinted spectacles because, as the guard explains to Dorothy upon her arrival at the gates, “if you did not wear spectacles the brightness and glory of the Emerald City would blind you. … They are locked on, for Oz so ordered it when the City was first built” (117). 2) Robespierre himself always wore green-tinted glasses, according to his biographer Ruth Schurr (Fatal Purity, 12). 3) When he is unveiled at the end, Baum’s Wizard admits he is a humbug and reveals the tricks he has used to fool observers into believing in his power (ventriloquism, optical illusions, hot air balloon technology), his reclusive habits, and fear of being revealed. But his original rise to prominence, he insists, was something of an accident; as he notes, “I found myself in the midst of a strange people, who, seeing me come from the clouds, thought I was a great Wizard. Of course I let them think so, because they were afraid of me, and promised to do anything I wished them to” (187). The Wizard’s final words underline his goodness. In response to Dorothy’s exclamation, “I think you are a very bad man,” he replies: “Oh no, my dear; I’m really a very good man, but I’m a very bad Wizard, I must admit.” (189). 4) Robespierre’s speech to the Jacobins on November 21, 1793 reveals a similar mix of grandiloquence and humility. Defending his notion of a great Being who watches over the people, he describes himself as a “poor sort of Catholic,” but insists that his aim is true: “I have never cooled in my friendship for, or failed in my championship of, my fellow men. Indeed, I have only grown more wedded to the moral and political ideas that I have expressed … The French people pins its faith, not on its priests, nor on any superstition, or any ceremony, but on worship as such–that is to say, upon the conception of an incomprehensible power, which is at once a source of confidence to the virtuous and of terror to the criminal” (cited in Shurr, 194).
These echoes may be fortuitious; the landscape of 19th-century America abounded with tyrants and tricksters, to be sure. Nevertheless, it is intriguing to note the reverberations that echo between the sentiment and populism of the Wizard of Oz and the so-called Charlatan of the Terror.
Works cited (and sources of illustrations):
Ruth Schurr, Fatal Purity: Robespierre and the French Revolution (NY: Henry Holt, 2006).
L. Frank Baum, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (repr. of 1900 edition; Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Media Group LLC, 2003).

“A bűn céljai érdekében megöli az ártatlanságot, ám az ártatlanság minden erejét latba vetve küzd a bűn ellen.”

Robespierre

I swear I’ll have something real in a few days. These are just doodles from the margins of my notebooks from class.

Left to right:
Ficino, Brother Jerome, Bishop Aleander
Thomas Cromwell (who has no qualms about fucking your shit up), Jonathan Harker, Rev. Samuel Parris, Robespierre,
Mircea II (Vlad Dracula’s older brother), and the plague rat.

Next time: Julius Caesar and Nicomedes or Why Politics Hasn’t Changed

10. Peter the Great
Politics

Peter I’s rule as Czar saw many changes in Russia in the early 1700’s which would extend over the next couple hundred years. Russia was brought into the modern realm under Peter’s hand and went through much reformation to do so. Peter the Great expanded Russia greatly and strengthened their presence in Europe. Because of Peter, Russia was able to grow into the superpower it would eventually become, a superpower which would shape the fabric of world politics greatly.

9. Edward Jenner
Biology

Edward Jenner is the father of immunology and has had a major influence on medical advancements. During his time, small pox was ravaging the population. Jenner developed the vaccine which would hold the bugs at bay and set a whole new path for vaccination and medicine and would also lead to the eradication of small pox worldwide.

8. Maximilien Robespierre
Politics

One of the major events of the twentieth century was the bloody and violent French Revolution, a turning point from the feudal times of old to the fulfillment of the Enlightenment movement. One of the most influential figures in this great revolution was Maximilien Robespierre. Robespierre was unyielding in leading the fight against the monarchy, and his Reign of Terror left an indelible mark upon history.

7. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Music

Mozart is one of the most popular musicians in world history. He was the very definition of a child savant and made huge leaps and bounds in terms of classical music. He was an eccentric character and a celebrity of his time. His impact upon music, one of the great threads of any cultural fabric, is almost incalculable.

6. Leonhard Euler
Mathematics

Mathematicians have had a huge impact on the evolution of science and technology all throughout history. Some of these mathematicians are so important that their names are heard over and over again’ their thoeries and formulas used everywhere in math. Euler is one of those mathematicians. His discoveries in math are far-reaching; from calculus to geometry to graph theory. He is one of the greatest mathematicians in recent centuries.

5. George Washington
Politics

I stated previously that the 18th century is marked by two major events, one of which being the aforementioned French Revolution. The other of course is the American Revolution of the 1770’s where the United States separated from the British Empire. George Washington is the man who commanded the American forces against the British troops and would become the first president of the United States of America. America’s significance would only grow out of the Revolutionary War more and more each decade, and Washington was the man who first and foremost founded this nation which would grow into one of the greatest super powers the world has ever seen.

4. Immanuel Kant
Philosophy

Kant’s ideas in the 18th century are still some of the most powerful and influential ideas today. Kant was a leader of the Enlightenment movement through his ideas on reason and ethics. His ideas would be the basis for the two major revolutions of that time and he created a shift in philosophical thinking, influencing almost all who came after.

3. Thomas Jefferson
Politics

Thomas Jefferson is considered the driving force behind the USA’s Declaration of Independence and one of the fathers of democracy. The United States have become perhaps the most powerful and influential superpowers in history and its ideas of a free society have permeated throughout the world. Jefferson’s legacy, and the legacy of the other founding fathers of America, is still felt every day all around the world, whether it is through the democratic realms of other nations or through opposition of that great ideal.

2. James Watt
Innovation

Watt’s invention f the steam engine is one of those inventions which, quite simply put, change the world. This invention kicked off the Industrial Revolution, which would grow throughout the next century and would dominate the entire world, creating all sorts of population, industry and technological growth at an exponential scale. It could also be argued that the steam engine kicked off the greater accessibility of transportation, leading to the ’shrinking’ of the world which we know today.

1. Adam Smith
Economics

Adam Smith is the father of modern economics. His book The Wealth of Nations has become a road map for economics throughout the industrial revolution all the up until present day. Smith’s ideas about money and how it is used and distributed within our societies are vastly influential as money is usually behind almost everything that we do. For his massive contribution to helping us understand the driving force behind the progress of society, namely the economy, Smith is the most influential person of the 18th century.

Bullet points:

*The French Revolution was very confusing.

*Only the most dedicated readers will persist for 747 pages.

*The Committee of Public Safety was, in some respects, similar to a co-op board or a PTA: factions, alliances, occasional moments of grace.

*Hilary Mantel does, as I’d read in a review somewhere, manage to make Robespierre sympathetic.

*Robespierre said, “History is fiction.”

Well, what novelist wouldn’t want a protagonist like that? As in Wolf Hall, Mantel is very concerned with the power of words. There’s a phrase in the more recent book where Cromwell thinks that writing a law is the ultimate test of the function of the words in it. Here, Danton (a legendary speechmaker) ruminates that “actions are being manufactured out of speech. How can words save a country? Words make myths, it seems, and for their myths people fight to win.”

I had hoped for something a little clearer than A Place of Greater Safety turned out to be. I hoped I would finally be able to slot into place the various forms of government: National Assembly, Legislative Assembly, National Convention, etc. Nope. On the other hand, I will never again forget which one was Danton and which Robespierre, the Incorruptible. And both of these are to some extent outshone by Camille Desmoulins, the volatile, charming journalist who did a great deal to popularize the theory of the revolution. Mantel has him thinking, “Writing’s like running downhill; can’t stop if you want to.” She gives him near-universal sex appeal and flexible sexual morals; a gorgeous wife similarly equipped, and a wicked wit. It’s always nice when an author can make you fall in love with her creation.

Mantel’s contemporary voice was not a surprise this time, and I found it very effective. Managing more characters, she sometimes has them address the reader directly, and sometimes lists dialogue as in a play. The flaw in this book, though, is that it gets hard to wade through. I’m a motivated reader: I finished Simon Schama’s Citizens. But round about page 500, with the length of a normal novel still to go, I flagged. A great deal of the conflict is simply argument. Alliances change, and, sure, lives are at stake but it’s very hard (despite the list of characters at the front) to keep track of who’s who and why being a friend of Brissot’s (or Fabre’s, or, ultimately, Danton’s) was such a bad idea. We know that most of these people will end up on the scaffold anyway.

And then, of course, it’s all pretty depressing. These men began with good intentions and deep affection for each other. They go through loyalty, mutual concern, tolerance, mistrust, suspicion, conciliation, renewed affection, willed indifference. Danton and Desmoulins died on the same day. Robespierre lasted a little bit longer, as one might expect of the cool customer with apparent ice water in his veins. And of course the French Revolution, according to some historians, took another hundred years to play out in its entirety.

Cynthia MacWhorter participated in the 2009 Teachers as Scholars program on “The French Revolution: A Cultural Approach” (10/6 & 10/13/09). The creative project she contributed is a painting in grisaille of Marie-Antoinette juxtaposed, over whirling cloud-like brush strokes, against images of Robespierre, the halls of Versailles, the National Assembly, and the guillotine. The text on the painting reads: “October 16, 1793: What was her crime, really? Born, wrong place, wrong time? Totally clueless? Married a guy equally clueless? Not French?”
This commentary accompanies the painting: “Due to the fact that the revolution was all about human rights, I felt I wanted to address the lack of rights granted to the many persons who lost their lives due to who they were by birth. Obviously they were not totally innocent of ignorance, respect for the plight of thousands of deprived individuals and a lack of understanding which they probably could have remedied, but as I am opposed to captital punishment for even the worst criminals in contemporary society, I wanted to draw (with paint) attention to the young Queen and her plight.”
Cynthia MacWhorter, Art teacher, St. Joseph High School, South Bend, IN

geçen günlerde çapanın ücra sokaklarından birinde okuldan arkadaşım ve almanyadaki yoldaşım S.C.Z. ve 3-5 şahıs ile adı geçen ülkeden gelen bir ortak arkadaşımızın gönlünü hoş ederken, bıçkın gençlerden biri abi müzeyyen senar aç,  öbürü yok abi zeki müren dinleyelim, ötekisi ne zeki müreni yaa nejat alp yapalım gibi 40 yıllık meyhane tayfası edasıyla sağa sola sıkarkene fouchévari bir hareketle kulaklara ciwan haco’yu (sivuan hako diye okuyan bir sınıf arkadaşım vardı lisede) fısıldayıp olayın eksenini tamamen değiştirdim ki müziğini hiç sevmem kendisinin. neyse işte böyle içkinin etkisiyle falan zeki müren’den açıldı şarkılar türküler. cehaletiyle beni sürekli şaşırtanlarından bir tanesi aa bak program kaydı var dedi açtı bir video.

olay şu; halit kıvanç ve zeki müren über ağdalı bir türkçeyle paslaşıyorlar ve son noktayı zeki müren bir tekerlemeyle koyuyor. sonra dedim kendi kendime türkiye’de androjenlik seviyesine ulaşabilecek kadar cinsellik olayını bitirmiş kaç kişi var? hemen eve geldim aradım videoları falan trt ile yaptığı görüntülü bir teleröportajı ele geçirdim. baktım arkadaş adam maskülen de değil, feminen de değil. bilirsiniz ville vallo diye bir adam da vardır makyaj yaptığında en güzel bir kadın görmüşçesine gibi vay be dedirtebilir kendisine. ha keza tokio hotel denen emo grubunun solisti de güzel bir eleman bildiğiniz. ben gördüğümü söylüyorum ve diyorum ki güzel adamlar bunlar (gay falan değilim,her gün sokakta gördüğünüz veya gördüğünüzü sandığınız heterolardan biriyim)

zeki müren de güzelliğiyle olmasa da davranışları ve duruşuyla bu yaftayı sonuna kadar hakediyor. kıskanıyorum kendisini bitsin diyorum bizim insanımızın bu cinsellikle imtihanı  bir üst boyuta geçelim zira nietzsche’nin übermensch’i günümüzde androjen’e karşılık gelmektedir artık.ünlü jakoben robespierre’in “eğitilmiş bir halk,toplumsal adalete inanan devrimci bir iktidarın yönetiminde, içindeki eşitsizlikleri yokedecektir. bu doğallıkla kendiliğinden olacaktır” sözü umarım ülkemin semalarında görmeyi arzuladığım cinsel devrim için de geçerli olurda akabinde refaha kavuşuruz.

*derdini anlatacak kadar aelmanca bilen zeki müren’ime ithafen yazılmıştır

ilintili link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQw-seL1L_o&NR=1

Du Contrat Social ou Principes du Droit Politique, écrit en 1762 par Jean-Jacques Rousseau figure parmi l’un de ses plus célèbres essais à l’instar d’Emile et de l’Education.

Considéré comme un ouvrage fondateur pour les pères de la Révolution Française, le Contrat Social aborde l’homme et ses relations au pouvoir, sa liberté, son lien à la culture et à la nature. Par ailleurs, Jean-Jacques Rousseau introduit ces notions fondamentales au discours révolutionnaire : le pacte citoyen garantissant l’égalité et la liberté de chacun comme base de toute société.

C’est pourquoi, Jean-Jacques Rousseau refuse et réfute l’esclavage qu’il considère comme illégitime. Il en vient d’ailleurs à prouver que le serviteur a beau être l’esclave de son maître, son maître est tout autant dépendant et donc esclave lui aussi des actes de son serviteur. Une pensée novatrice et irrévérencieuse qui fera le renom de l’auteur.

Par ailleurs, il vous sera capital de rappeler l’appartenance des idées de Jean-Jacques Rousseau à la pensée des Lumières auxquelles appartiennent Voltaire ou Diderot. Préconisant la liberté des hommes, un pouvoir doué de raison et non obscurantiste, la philosophie des Lumières s’épanouit avec brio chez Rousseau qui au travers du Contrat social propose l’idée d’un pouvoir bâti sur la volonté du peuple et amorce ainsi l’idée d’une démocratie.

A inizio secolo – il “primo del nuovo millennio” ricorda la retorica dei pennivendoli – la terribile risposta del capitalismo ha spento sul nascere una voglia di cambiamento attraversata dai brividi di un’autentica ribellione. Sorpresa dalla luce di un’alba livida, la fragile impalcatura dei sogni, tuttavia, s’è sfasciata e il risveglio è stato doloroso.
Sono passati anni e, a ben vedere, tra i nostri giorni bui e le speranze di Genova 2001, non ci sono solo i “democratici” alla Fini installati nella cabina di regia della repressione, il colpo mortale tirato a Carlo Giuliani – ma il bersaglio vero qual era? – la Diaz, Bolzaneto e l’intoccabile De Gennaro. C’è, quantomeno, l’insanguinato stillicidio dei “testimoni scomodi”, i giornalisti e quei fotografi che, per dirla con Josef Koudelka, le foto le “fanno coi piedi”, perché camminano per chilometri tra mille rischi, e fissano in uno scatto o in una frase le rare verità che giungono ormai nelle nostre case assediate da menzogne di Stato. Chi ricorda Maria Grazia Cutuli? Chi conserva memoria di Baldoni o di Raffaele Ciriello freddato dal mitra d’un carro israeliano?
C’è dell’altro. E di peggio: un sonno pericoloso della ragione.
Se Tremonti, folgorato con Saulo sulla via di Damasco, si riscopre socialista e carezza con la mano destra i 130.000 precari della scuola che con la sinistra va decimando, non ci sono dubbi: questo decennio di secolo presenta finalmente la sua natura vera, doppia e schizofrenica nei tratti dominanti: la costruzione artificiosa del consenso su base mediatica e puramente virtuale e la manipolazione del reale, per cui tutto è vero, ma vero è anche il contrario di tutto.
La distruzione del sistema formativo, che giunge alla fine del decennio, si incarna metaforicamente in un San Precario che illumina il Tremonti tornato “socialista”, ma non sa e non può parlare al Tremonti ministro e non lo induce a rompere col “terrorismo psicologico” di quella Confindustria che di Genova s’è servita cinicamente per annientare la resistenza dei lavoratori. Non facciamoci illusioni. Non c’è spazio per la speranza e non ci sono dubbi: il lavoro non verrà da questo miserabile “gioco delle tre carte”. Non verrà, perché è chiaro che il precariato e la critica al precariato sono i due rovesci della stessa medaglia: il capitale “buono”, che cerca consensi alimentando i sogni che la politica di classe si incarica di soffocare con l’inaudita violenza scatenata a Genova. E’ meglio dirselo: il miliardo di analfabeti che popolano il pianeta, l’infinita sequela di disperati e morti per fame sono un’umanità di scarto, una merce avariata che non ha mercato. Merce, spiegava non a torto Marx, sono per il capitale i lavoratori, i poveri e gli emarginati. E merce sono i precari d’ogni specie, i clandestini, i lavoratori al nero, i disoccupati che formano l’esercito sterminato dei crumiri. Merce e null’altro, che si vende e si compra a tanto al chilo, come gli studenti rapinati della scuola, gli immigrati respinti in un rinnovato Medio Evo, i cristiani lanciati strumentalmente contro i musulmani, mentre i bianchi tornano “padroni dei neri” e i neri sono costretti a una nuova servitù.
Il dramma dei precari della scuola è una piccola e dolorosa goccia di sangue nell’emorragia provocata nel corpo sociale dalla sconfitta epocale del socialismo e dall’effimera vittoria d’un capitalismo stretto alla gola dalle sue stesse contraddizioni. E’ parte della svalutazione dei diritti elementari – persino quello di vivere – della marginalizzazione e della repressione spietata d’ogni forma di dissenso e di qualsivoglia volontà di riscatto. Il sogno di una nuova “narrazione del mondo” è morto a Genova, ucciso da una brutalità che pretende il silenzio su ogni vergogna del mercato, anche sui milioni di bambini che lavorano o muoiono di fame, comprati e venduti, merce tra merci, in nome del profitto. D’altra parte è innegabile: abbiamo le nostre colpe. Nuova democrazia, sussidiarietà, sostenibilità ecologica, eredità comune, diritti umani, lavoro, cibo sufficiente e sicuro, equità e diversità, le tante parole d’ordine del nostro “nuovo mondo” sono state dall’inizio un sogno affascinante che non si è mai tradotto in un programma. E’ mancata la consapevolezza. Se un nemico ti affronta con la forza, devi approntare macchine da guerra; noi marciamo invece in ordine sparso e ognuno contratta per la sua parrocchia. Contro la guerra preventiva dichiarata dal capitale siamo divisi e disarmati e questo ci condanna alla sconfitta. Per costruire un mondo nuovo occorrono buone penne, ma anche lettori avvertiti, armi taglienti, ma in mano a buoni soldati. Occorre che sia sveglio l’istinto vitale della legittima difesa. A Tremonti che riscopre l’anima socialista, timoroso delle conseguenze del malgoverno liberista, Robespierre chiederebbe “come può il tiranno invocare il patto sociale, se egli stesso l’ha distrutto” [1]. E non avrebbe torto: il patto è stato violato.

1) Maximilien Francois Marie Isidore de Robespierre, Sul processo del re. 3-12-1792, in Opere complete, IX, Discuors, (quatriéme partie, Septembre 1792-27 Julliet 1793 Phenix, Ivry, 2000.

Uscito su “Fuoriregistro” il 22 ottobre del 2009 e su “Report on line” il 24 ottobre 2009

Les Philosophes des Lumières appartiennent au XVIIIème siècle rebaptisé siècle des Lumières de par l’importance grandissante de la pensée philosophique au sein des sociétés contemporaines.

Phénomène d’origine française, son rayonnement a vite traversé les frontières et demeure un facteur fondamental à la Déclaration d’Indépendance des Etats-Unis et à la Révolution Française. Autour de ses figures les plus connues dont Voltaire, Diderot, D’Alembert ou Rousseau, la pensée de Lumières ouvrent une nouvelle voie vers la connaissance où la science joue un rôle prépondérant, comme le montre la très fameuse Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et métiers publiée en 1751, et où la raison est hissée contre l’obscurantisme et la tyrannie. Les Lumières posent les questions de la nature de l’homme, de son lien à la nature, à la culture, de sa faculté de raison et de sa liberté.

L’impact de la pensée des Lumières dans la société française demeure l’un des plus grands changements que compte l’Histoire de France. En effet, face à un monarchie de droit divin affaiblie et sclérosée, le besoin de renouveau politique se fait sentir plus que jamais et les inégalités sociales semblent plus illégitimes qu’avant. Et même si Voltaire ou Rousseau ne viennent pas  à toujours questionner frontalement l’existence de Dieu, le Clergé sera largement mis à mal jusqu’à sa quasi-destruction durant la Révolution Française.

Parmi les ouvrages qu’il vous sera capital de citer sur tout exposé ou réflexion sur la philosophie Lumières, il ne faudra oublier de mentionner Lettre sur les aveugles à l’usage de ceux qui voient de Diderot, Le Contrat Social de Rousseau, Candide ou l’Optimisme.

A couple years ago the Christian apologists at American Vision put up this ugly bit of fear mongering:

To which Laci Green more recently retorted with this satire:

Your Thoughts?

For the Previous Parts of the Series:

Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me: Part I

Hell on Earth: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part II

Boring From Within: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part III

To Have And Have Not: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part IV

Post-modern leftism: Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me, Part V

The wisest thing Lennon (John, not Vladimir) said about revolutionaries was a line in the song which declared (sort of) his parting of the ways with them: “You say you want a revolution, well, you know, we’d all like to see your plan.” Lennon went on to say that radicals could count him out if they were preaching hate. (But then, the Beatles caved and changed the lyric so that it said both “you can count me out — in.” Well, who in in his right mind over the age of 30 looks for wisdom about reconstructing society to an art form in which “singing doo wah diddie diddie doo wah do” is regarded as genius? But don’t get me wrong, I love this stuff).

We’d all like to see your plan. Yes indeed we would.

The fact is that revolutionaries beginning with Rousseau and Robespierre and Marx have never had a plan. The ones who did and tried to build little utopian communities failed. But the really serious revolutionaries, the ones prepared to burn down the system and put their opponents up against the wall, they never have a plan. What they have is a vague idea of the heaven they propose to create on earth — in Marx’s case “the kingdom of freedom,” in Alinsky’s “the open society” — which is sentimental and seductive enough to persuade their followers that it’s alright to commit mayhem and murder — usually in epic doses — to bring it about. Otherwise, revolutionaries never give two seconds  to the problem of how to make a new society work. How to keep people from committing crimes against each other (the Alinsky answer: capitalism makes them criminals), and how to get people to actually work, to produce.  From Marx to Mao to Castro, revolutionaries have never had a clue. (Their excuse for the monstrous poverty and human suffering they create? — the capitalists are responsible, it’s the U.S. embargo.)

So if there is no plan, the devil is in the detail of the methods you use to get there. Each step of the way constitutes another block in the foundations of the world you are creating. The means tell you what the ends will be.

Alinsky’s biographer with the following anecdote about Alinsky’s advice to students wishing to protest the appearance on their campus of the first George Bush, before he became president, because he was America’s representative to the UN during the Vietnam War:

“College student activists in the 1960s and 1970s sought out Alinsky for advice about tactics and strategy.  On one such occasion in the spring of 1972 at Tulane University’s annual week-long series of events featuring leading public figures, students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations, a speech likely to be a defense of the Nixon Administration’s Vietnam War policies [Note: the Nixon Administration was then negotiating with the North Vietnamese communists to arrive at a peace agreement-- DH] The students told Alinsky that they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush’s address. That’s the wrong approach, he rejoined — not very creative and besides, causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school. [Not likely -- DH.]

“He told them, instead, to go hear the speech dressed up as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards, reading ‘The K.K.K. supports Bush.’ And that is what the students did with very successful, attention-getting results.” (Let Them Call Me Rebel, pp. xv-xvi)

This anecdote tells you everything you really need to know about this mentor to Hillary Clinton and the Obamas, and the ACORN radicals. Lenin once said that purpose of a political argument is not to refute your opponent “but to wipe him from the face of the earth.” The mission of Alinsky radicals is a mission of destruction. It doesn’t matter that the Vietnam war was not a race war — that millions of South Vietnamese were against the Communists, that the South was eventually conquered by North Vietnamese armies because the Viet Cong failed to win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese people. It doesn’t matter who George Bush actuually is or what he believes. Because your purpose is to erase him and the system he is alleged to represent. Therefore pick the symbol of the greatest evil that Americans — a small minority of Americans — were ever associated with, and use it to obliterate everything good they ever did in the service of your cause, which is to destroy the system which created them. If America’s cause in Vietnam is the Ku Klux Klan, it is evil and America is evil. If George Bush is the Ku Klux Klan, that’s it. Nobody needs to listen to him, he is non-person, a symbol of evil. Inside every radical is a Manichean at war with the forces of darkness and evil. In such war every means is justified, as we shall see. (To be continued…)

Part 7: Means and Ends, Continued

The Eight

It is very difficult to describe this book in a nutshell, but I will give it a go anyway. The story is about a magnificent chess set called the Montglane Service. Hidden in it is a secret formula that can provide unlimited powers to the person who uncovers the secret.

The story is set in two time frames—1972, and at the time of the French Revolution, during the Terror, in 1790 and beyond.

The story is about a race by two different sides that have deliberately taken on identities as the Black and White “teams” in chess, to collect the pieces of the Montglane Service that were scattered, as a precautionary measure during the French Revolution. Murders occur in both periods during this struggle for obtaining a means to what is thought to be unlimited power.

The adventure in the book is top-notch. There are car chases, exotic locations, and bad guys to outwit. However, there are also sections of the book that made me close the book and reflect on what I was reading. This is not just a time-pass thriller. There is loads of information on alchemy, physics, chess, mathematics, history, and a heavy dose of mysticism. It is quite apparent that a lot of research has gone into the writing of this book.

The parts I loved best were all the chess manoeuvrings. I also really loved the fact that the whole novel is structured like a giant chess game. You have one of the main characters Catherine Velis starting out as a pawn, and slowly gaining energy and strength as she moves across the board to replace the Black Queen. She eventually becomes the Black Queen and checks the White King. Really superb stuff! It is also real fun to try and guess who is playing which part in the chess game.

OK, from the above para you would have guessed that only chess-lovers can enjoy this book. That’s true to a certain extent. You could enjoy this book merely as an adventure story even if you do not enjoy / know chess. But, if you like chess, you will truly love and appreciate this book, and understand all the nuances.

By no means is this a perfect book. There were a couple of minor, irritating flaws. Katherine Neville’s habit of injecting a phrase like little did she know that her actions would blah, blah, blah in order to keep the reader informed of events unfolding was downright irritating.

There were also a bit too many (almost gratuitous) actual historical characters moving in and out of the plot. Talleyrand, Catherine the Great, Napoleon, Robespierre, Voltaire, William Blake, William Wordsorth, and tons more personalities populate the book. Of these, only Talleyrand, Catherine the Great, and Napoleon actually move the story forward. The rest were not really required.

There was also one more plot-inconsistency, however, I don’t want to blog about it and give the plot away here.

But at the end of the day, I just re-iterate what the blurb on the book cover said – If you have read The DaVinci Code and enjoyed it then you will probably find this book enjoyable also. One caveat- this is not as easy a read as DaVinci code.

After reading this book, I kept having vivid mental images of beautiful chess pieces, so I just had to search for some beautiful chess imagery to share here…

Almost a Countrified King and Queen

I imagine the Montglane chess pieces to be like this (only adorned with jewels)

Chess set from the 1700s I think

Enjoy!

Cheers,

Ontem anunciamos aqui que o site da Lionhead estava com Guevara no inicio, hoje ele já está com Robespierre e ainda temos um número 5 átras, ontem tinha um 6, e 5 é o número de dias que falta para a GamesCom. Veja a citação de Robespirre abaixo:

“Terrorismo é apenas justiça: direta, severa e inflexivel; é uma emanação da virtude; é um princípio menos distinto do que a consequencia geral do princípio da democracia aplicado ás mais flagrantes necessidades do país.”

SDC10140 Le juge-pénitent [Samsung Master 2009-04-22]

Joséphine was born Marie Josèphe Rose Tascher de la Pagerie on the 23rd June 1763. She was not born in France but instead came from a wealthy white Créole family based in Les Trois-Ilets, Martinique.

The young Joséphine was sent to France as a teenager to be the bride of the handsome Alexandre, Vicomte de Beauharnais, who was a favourite at court although Joséphine herself was never presented at Versailles. The young couple were happy for a short while and had two children: Eugène Rose, born on 3rd September 1781 and Hortense Eugènie Cécile, born on 10th April 1783.

Joséphine’s marriage broke down shortly after the birth of Hortense, when her philandering husband decided to accuse her of adultery and announced that the new baby was not his. Joséphine withdrew to Penthémont on the Rue de Grenelle, which as well as being a fashionable convent school was also a refuge for aristocratic ladies who had fallen on hard times.

While at Penthèmont, the young Vicomtesse de Beauharnais copied the aristocratic women who surrounded her and refined her already elegant sense of style and perfected her manners and bearing, becoming more graceful. Créole women were much admired at this time as they tended to be lazy, sensual and have beautiful, drawling speaking voices: Joséphine capitalised on all three and although she was never a beauty, she soon became known for being one of the most attractive women in Paris.

When the revolution broke out, her husband sided with the more liberal aristocrats and joined the Republican army. He was even the president of the Convention when the royal family escaped from Paris in 1792, so clearly enjoyed much favour despite his aristocratic background. It was not to last, however and after a dismal military defeat at Mainz for which he bore the blame, he was imprisoned with his wife shortly joining him at the Carmes prison.

Joséphine’s husband was guilotined on 23rd July 1794, only a few days before the fall of Robespierre and his wife was expected to follow suit. However, the fall of Robespierre saved her and thanks to the influence of an old friend, Thérèsia Cabarrus, she was swiftly released from prison.

Free from prison and reunited with her children, Joséphine flung herself into the hedonistic delights of a Paris that was thrilled to be freed from tyranny and horror. She became well known for her extravagent lifestyle (which incurred enormous debts as she was virtually penniless) and for her dalliances with influential men.

When Joséphine met the young Napoléon, she was not initially impressed and would never have been able to guess that he would have such a profound influence on her life. Napoléon, however was smitten and as was his habit changed her name from Rose to Joséphine. When he proposed marriage, Joséphine probably didn’t know what to say but she was not getting any younger and was no doubt advised to accept his proposal by some of her more politically astute friends, who had no doubt realised that Napoléon was a rising star.

The ill assorted couple were married on the 9th March 1796. Napoléon gave his new wife a ring with ‘To Destiny’ engraved inside, truly believing that she was his lucky star and the source of all of his good fortune. In later years, after they had divorced as a result of his need for an heir, he would say that good luck had deserted him when he left her.

He may have divorced her, but Joséphine never deserted him and remained loyal to him until her death on 29th May 1814 from pneumonia caught while showing the Tzar Alexander around her beautiful rose garden at Malmaison.

The irony of course is that Napoléon has no known living descendants while Joséphine is a direct ancestor of the royal houses of Denmark, Greece, Belguim, Norway, Sweden and Luxembourg.