Chapter 26

By David Villacorta

This chapter talks about expelling barbarians from Italy. Just as it was in the fifth century, when the barbarians took over the Roman empire, Italy still had barbarians in their soil. Nicholas, is sending a message to all princes in their different principalities to raise in arms and fight against them.

Now, we have seen all over this book that the author is clearly stating to wage war and to endure a strong hand whenever is necessary to keep a government up. In this final chapter he talks about joining forces for the barbarians to leave Italian provinces.

This is to me a classical example of medieval time’s way of doing things, like; they would join forces to fight a common enemy. In today’s nowadays or modern times, what I can get from them is World War II, where different nations joined to fight against other nations, who they believed had it wrong.

In Central America, I would quote the example of William Walker, the pirate, wanting to take over the region.  All of Central Americans joined and expelled him in one of the most glorious fights of our history.

To sum all up, this is a brilliant book for politicians, if they wish to stay in power, the methods, even though medieval at times, are the same in it essence.

Chapter 25

By David Villacorta

A ruler cannot base his fate on fortune, for it can change from one minute to the other, and can make the ruler lose immensely. He says that something’s cannot be avoided, and that it has to be that way thanks to fortune and God, however he says there are things that can be avoided.

He uses women as figure to make the reader  understand how fortune has to be managed. He says that it has to be done in a way in which  many obstacles can be avoided. Fortune has to be beat down and controlled, for it prefers younger men like women, because they are docile and easy to handle.

Today many rulers do not act on fortune, the ones who do, fail, and besides, the figure of God is not as important as it was in those times. Now, many may still base their actions in fortune, and that would be a pity for the ruler since he needs to have it all figure out by their own intellect. 

Chapter 24

By David Villacorta

Just because things are right now it does not mean they will be that way all the time. Many governments fail because they not to foresee future actions which will bring them to their end. Nicholas talks about why some Italian princes have lost their principalities, and it is mostly because of their indolence, as he calls it, but also because they did not know how to manage their power.

It seems important to keep the people happy and to follow all the directions he has been talking about throughout the book, but also to keep in mind that nothing can prevail more than being aware of the surroundings, and in that case, they must follow suit to what is best at the time.

He also mentions something important to understand to anyone who’s considering to rule, and that is that the people mostly enjoy their present time. That is all they care about. They care very little about what happened before, they just want to enjoy the present, and so a prince or ruler must hold this accountable, for they need to use the present to run efficiently their office time. 

Chapter 23

By David Villacorta

This one chapters talks about how to avoid flatterers, this in order to know how to choose the advice from the ones close to the ruler. It happens often that the closer advisors, usually make the ruler think he is doing things right for two reasons: one, because they want to deceive the ruler, and once he is weak in popularity, betray him, and second, because the ruler has a big ego, they fear him and revere him in a dishonest way.

So Nicholas advises them to be careful with those who appear to be pleasing to them. In todays time I would say the media plays a role here. The media is usually bought by the government and so they flatter every single thing they do by giving them presence in a daily basis. The media makes the government think they are doing things just the way they should be made.

Also, the polls, usually misguided, deceived the government and the people by making everyone believe they are popular or accepted, but then it turns out these polls are fake and use entirely to serve a purpose.

I do not know if my perception is right or not, but this is the closest example I can think of that relates to the material. 

Chapter 22

By David Villacorta

To me this is a great chapter for many rulers today, here he talks about having a wise selection of ministers. It is very logical to say that if a ruler is surrounded by wicked and twisted minds, he is likely to be one too. So Nicholas in these chapters explains the relevance and importance of selecting the private secretaries.

The secretaries must have their own ability and above all commitment towards their leader. If he minister is not to be trusted from the beginning, then it has to be eliminated. Let’s look at this today. Many private secretaries are usually selected to hold a position based in the favors they do while there is a political campaign. How can this be spotted? Several rulers reach power through favors, they fund their political campaign and expect a favor in return.

Is this honest? Absolutely not! That is the main problem of Latin American politicians, they are always owing favors, and at the end they make people ministers who are less qualified for the position, and worse than that, people who are there purely for gaining interests.

So it is essential to select the correct person. That is a big mistake in today’s government. Most of the times the people who are in charge of very important secretaries such as education or health, are the least qualified for and are there for pure political interest. 

Chapter 21

By David Villacorta

This chapters deals on how a prince must gain esteem internally and outside. He cites the king of Spain as a man of great esteem since he drove the islamics outside of Spain after centuries of occupation. So he says that in order to acquire it there is a need to keep the image in front of others, to gain respect.

At the end he also mentions hosting great events to show power and to have worth and important visitors stay in in his household. This is a more diplomatic advise. Like, today, when celebs or people who are famous that fight human hunger or fight for humans right, and are appealing to the government in turn, they are praised or rewarded and the president or government gains respect for doing so.

It is also like the famous case of the pilot Charles Lindbergh, who flew across the Atlantic and became the most photographed person at his time. Many countries honored him with his visit, because having him meant they agreed with the great advances of aviation in the world.

So for the rulers it is important to show greatness, but mostly in order to gain self-respect and to make their people happy. I am not sure whether I agree or not, but many presidents or head of states do it in current times. 

Chapter 20

By David Villacorta

This one chapter talks about whether fortresses and many things that princes employ every day are useful or harmful. Well he makes a point again of how important the army is. And that if a prince gets to power by force, how careful the ruler has to be in order to show power.

He also says that a fortress must be used for protection, but also to keep the people happy. My first thoughts are that or brings the question about  if an army is necessary to hold power today. A good army serves the purpose of protecting the mainland, but what can we do if this happens to change? I mean, why do we need an army today? It seems like for countries like the United States it is necessary to maintain their interests intact, but what about poor countries like the central american ones? To me it seems like they are only used for public safety, but they are there for external attacks not local ones.  So I don’t know what purpose an army really serves today. 

Chapter 19

By David Villacorta

This chapter talks about avoiding being despised and hated, he summons it up when he says that it is only necessary to keep the people happy to avoid being abducted from power by murdering or by plotting against the ruler. If most people are happy, then few will want to join a conspiracy and it will make the ruler last longer.

Now, he quotes several examples of emperors who were hated not by the people but by the army, who once turned against their wicked ways, found a loophole to plot and remove the emperor from power.

So it seems like there has to be a level for avoiding being hated. Because we have  to avoid being hated by the army, the nobles and the people, if we are hated by all, then our cause is lost. So it seems like the best way is to keep a game with all parties and sort of make them happy.

It looks like this is applied today. Who is the ruler supposed to benefit or keep happy? middle, low or upper class? It seems like he has to play a key role to maintain power. The one class that would keep him in power must be enough to maintain his position. 

Chapter 18

By David Villacorta

Here the author is talking about a prince keeping his word. He starts by saying how good it would be if all princes kept their word, however he says that this is not the way the real world works. How does it work? He richly explains by saying: “if you were to be religious, prudent, wise and others, you can be that way, but you must change according to the winds of fortune or circumstances” So he is basically saying to appear to be many good things, but in the end switch to a nature that will enable the ruler in power.

So he gives the example of the fox and lion, and how to maintain both their virtues will help to keep power. Nicholas says cunning, and that is perhaps the greatest virtue of rulers. To know how to act when the times tell them to. If they are to be mean, let’s be mean, if they were to be harmful, then let’s be harmful.  It has to be this way and only this way. I think any individual who holds power knows this, they have to act and be present, and aware at all times. There cannot be a moment in which they’d say: I am fine how I am. When it comes to power and money, there has got to be a way to keep it, and for that there must be awareness 24/7.

Chapter 17

By David Villacorta

This is a chapter which talks about of cruelty and mercy, and whether it is better to beloved than to be feared or the contrary. It seems to be like this is an outstanding instructional pamphlet for any individual who has stayed in power for a long time.

In the first instant it seems like the prince must be loved, however in order to keep control of power some level of cruelty must be shown. How and why? To make the army stronger. In those times the army had to be kept strong and loyal since it was an essential element to maintain power.

So basically a prince or ruler must be loved, but also feared, so that invaders would not take his principality easily. Just as it is now, the ruler must be in control of their principality and be loved, but he has to be taken seriously. Like some dictators who apparently are loved by their nation and feared outside. Again, the case of North Korea, where the inhabitants of North Korea love him, weep his death, but outside he is hated and feared. 

Chapter 16

By David Villacorta

This chapter talks about generosity and miserliness in a ruler’s mandate. What is a prince suppose to do? To be known as to be miser or generous, at the end the author states that both can be ways to be known, but he finally says that it is best to be miser rather than generous. He says so because in that order the parties that keep you in power will not wage war against the principality.

Then he continues saying that there are ways to be generous, and that is as long as there are means to keep the state intact. He also mentions that it is ok to live of others. Like, use the resources of other nations in order to keep yours intact. So that makes me think that it happens today, where rich, developed countries use different means to get rich from other nations. 

Chapter 15

By David Villacorta

This chapter talks about “of those things for which men, and particularly princes, are praised or blamed”. So, my first perception is that, apparently, the means are justify by the final objective.  He says that one has to be cruel and vicious, just as long as it serves a good purpose.  This sort of explains to me that in order to keep power, the hands have got to get dirty. A prince or ruler cannot stand aside from action, at all times, their state and position is at stake.

It kind of gives me the idea that if we want to be involved in politics, or if we want to hold a position in power, we have to do what it takes to keep as long as we can. I see this in dictatorial states such as North Korea, where a one family, group of influence and family, join together to hold power for a long time. In the case of democratic elected individuals, then keeping their image “intact” to the public is a must, since they will decide whether he is worth of their trust or not. Even though, to make an open criticism to politics in Latin America, the people are usually dumb, why? Because some politicians have not clearly gained their trust, and yet they still give them their vote, is this for ignorance or other? I do not know. 

Chapter 14

By David Villacorta

This chapter talks about the duties of the princes to their armies. The author basically says that in order for them to stay in control of their territory and heir, they must be trained into the art of war and arms. Then, the whole chapter goes on examples of how some citizens acquired power for using force, but their sons declined to follow suit, and as a consequence, lost their power.

Now, what comes to my mind is that the author is saying is right to have a war, is right to protect yourself and start a war in order to control the territory. Some people still believe in this today, that war is the only way to get to power or to solve problems, just like this writer 500 years ago.  I think they are right when they say we need to have an army of our own, but I do not know about making war for the sake of protection or just to get to power. 

Chapter 13

By David Villacorta

This chapter talks about auxiliary, mixed, and citizen soldiers, I am going to quote what Nicholas says at the end: I take my stand entirely on such methods. What methods? May we ask ourselves? The ones that say that the army of a Principality shall be their own and not a foreign one. This chapter cites examples of princes who called the aid of different armies and at the end their fate was disastrous because they turned prisoners of their aides.

Now, let’s analyze how this can be applied to current times. I do not find a recent example but from World War II. In the big war several alliances were signed. For example, at the beginning the Russians and the Germans agreed not to attack each other, however, at the end this proved wrong, and eastern front was the worst one. Then the United States allied with the soviets and they both brought down Nazi Germany.  Now what about the countries in that war who were not supreme powers? Such as Italy, for example. When Mussolini was abducted from power, the Germans invaded and committed some atrocities, especially against Italian Jews, probing that having an allied that seeks power voraciously, is usually the beginning of the end.

I think having our own army is important if we are always to be in the state of war, but today for example basically Honduras is an occupied nation. Whose army is bigger in Honduran soil, the American palmerola or our own army? Supposedly the American one. Would they always protect us ? I think they will as long as their interests are not at stake.

Chapter 12

By David Villacorta

This chapter talks about of the various kinds of troops and mercenary soldiers, he discusses about the disgrace brought upon Italy because the different states started to use mercenary soldiers to protect them instead of loyal citizens. At first he briefly explains what a principality needs to be successful: it needs a good army and good laws. He finally ends up saying that there aren’t good laws without armies and vice versa. So he continues talking  about armies and mercenaries. He clearly blames the defeat and terrible state of the Italian territory to the use of mercenaries. He says before that when the emperor of Rome in its traditional form started to lose power, then Italy turned into the power of the Pope, and since most citizens didn’t know how to defend their city, they hired mercenaries. And he then explains of many different examples of mercenaries being nice in peaceful times but betrayal type in when it came to wage about war. Finally he says that the mercenaries can obtain certain victories but in the long run their assistance turns into disaster.

Now, I see some resemblance in today’s reality, especially about keeping an army in the democratic nations of today. Do we need armies today? It seems like, for example, Costa Rica does not possess an army and they depend in the United Nations to provide them protection in case they’re invaded. In Honduras we have an army and they have support from the people and the government, but, do we need an army to make us a better country? I do not know what to think there. However, I would prefer to have Honduran citizens defending our soil rather than mercenaries from oversees.

Maybe another way to see foreign intervention is through economic interference from big countries such as the United States and European ones over affairs of underdeveloped countries like Honduras. We have their aid or foreign investment, but I am not so sure how much good they do to our country. 

Chapter 11

By David Villacorta

This chapter talks about ecclesiastical powers, such as the one the Pope and the Catholic Church held at the time. I think this is kind of important. I do not know how much real power the Catholic Church holds now, but from the chapter it seems like they had plenty of it back then. In one part of the chapter, the author acknowledges that this kind of government cannot be judge; however he mentions some example of how it is supposed to be managed.

He  uses  Alexander  IV  as  an  example  of  using  an  army  to  strengthen  the  power  of  a  Duke  and  the church  itself  in  the  long  run. What  I  find  interesting  is  how  Nicholas  says  that this  is  the  best  kind  of  king  down  because  no  enemies  will  attempt  to  destroy  since  it  is  protected  for  all  and  by  all.  So  It is  pretty  much  saying  to  have  the  power  of  religion  is  the  best  form  of  control  since  no  human  entity  is  going  to  overcome  it. It  is  also  worth  to  notice  how  they  don’t  mention  it  is  important to make  the  religion  figures  allies. In  those  times  to  my  understanding  it  was  essential to  have  the  Pope  as  your  ally  to  make  the  Reign  stronger  than  ever.
 

Chapter 10

By David Villacorta

Here he mentions how to defend the principality from enemies. He mostly talks about a prince who doesn’t have a strong army to destroy his enemies. He basically says that they need to storage food for a year and organize well to defend the city. He says that they cannot destroy him if they stay for over a year, since no army can remain idle after such long attempt to overcome a fort. 

Chapter 9

By David Villacorta

This is a fascinating chapter. It deals with civil government, such as the ones we have today. He talks about one kind of people that is essential in the sustainability of any government: the nobles, who nowadays are represented by the rich people or as Marx named them “bourgeois”.  The methodology described by the author is aimed to people of their time. Like saying be careful with the nobles, because some they are astute and cunning, they are hard to deal with, and some of them may approach you with good intentions and some with bad ones. So it tells the reader to approach them wisely. This brings the question to me as to how to deal with that today? I mean, can a president from middle class, rule the country without the rich’s favor? I think this is what happens to Mel Zelaya. He got away from the politicians and the rich people, and so they kick his butt. I mean, who holds control for real in Honduran soil? The government or the rich? Of course that the rich.   Our pathetic parents pay us to live some sort of life shaped as the American one here, and we, as dumb followers of American tradition believe we are sort of a privileged breed, and we are not, we are pathetic Hondurans living in a pitiful way believing we are better than the rest. The rich, the Facusse, the Atalas and others actually control this Indian country. So Mel tried to do it his own way, and the nobles kicked him away. In the author’s time they would have murdered him. There is one detail though, like, the author ends up saying that the favors of the people is assisted only if he makes them happy. But that’s not the case all the time, sometimes the nobles makes people think that what the civil ruler is doing is bad. So the stupid people believe it and make the ruler go away, because the nobles just want to oppress. Wasn’t that the case here? Was Mel doing the right thing? My parents think he wasn’t and I think my parents are way off. I don’t know what to believe or where to stand. I’m greatly favored by the current system compare to most people my age in Honduras. So where should I stand? I got no clue. 

Chapter 8

By David Villacorta

This chapter deals with people getting into to power by wicked means. The author cites two examples, one, of ancient times at the time the book was written, and the other of more recent times. The first one is about a Agatholcles, who reigned over Sicily. Basically, this guy always used cruelty to reach power. Once he held, he used brutal methods to clean his way. He maintained for quite a while until the Cartesians seized him. The second one is about a man who commited parricide and had to kill all those who would oppose him. Finally, Oliverotto of Fermo, was betrayed by his mentor and lost his principality.

What I manage to understand is that if we are to use cruelty as a way to maintain power then that’s the way it is always going to be. Like the author says, there has to be a “knife in the hand” at all times.  At the end he explains is better to use cruelty all at once but not slowly because it creates animosity from the close servants. He says that it’s ok to use it but at once, so that the pain may not last too long. How can we apply to today’s reality? In Honduras, for many years the military  raised to power by using the force, sometimes the opposition was minimized, and they had control of everything. This sounds more like a dictators way, however, I think today we may have corporate dictatorship, don’t you think that’s a pity? Everything is such a big pity, isn’t it? When there is cruelty involved in our way to power, pity is an element, but just for those who suffer the wicked ways. 

Chapter 7

By David Villacorta

The chapter left me the idea that this is a message for a royal line, of course, it was written hundreds of years ago. But, this is basically saying that if the people in power do not delegate functions in the government, then the people who come to administer afterwards will surely fail. Talking about acquiring a government by fortune or virtue is to say that the ones who get the first are likely to fail. Why? Because the ones who get it by favor are usually not prepare to face the challenges that lay ahead of them.

In today’s politics, many politicians “inherit” a certain position in the parties and are usually put in manager tasks, where they usually fail. The famous political favors that are so evident in our political body are one of the main causes or system is so corrupted. For example, I work for you during the political campaign and you put my sister, wife, daughter in a leading position in the government, and this person who is put there, is not prepare to undertake the task that’s been given. Therefore, if a person is put in a position of power by favor, then they will probably fail, and if this is spread all over the system, what can we see or expect? Oh wait… I know what… we can see Honduras!

Chapter 6

By David Villacorta

In this chapter the author explains how a kingdown is gained by the own virtue of the prince. He uses examples of great rulers who have managed to gain power and maintain it. He says moses is a great example, because he had to lead people. In all of this I think the main message is that leadership is neccesarry to achieve success in politics. All of the examples he mentions, the element of leadership is involved. How can they sustain a reign which they gained, not by fortune, but by their own means, it is to solidify their power and then find charisma in the people which they rule, by giving them what they need.

Interesting to see this chapter which basically says that a good politician or ruler cannot be considered to be a good one unless he makes their people happy and gives them what they need, using their leadership skills. Good message for the Honduran political body. Make the people happy or give them what they want, which is at the present to give the military authority to behave like the police. However, are they giving people the economic stability and human dignity they need in a country with 69% of poverty levels according to the United Nations.

So according to the author, politicians should solidify by using good skills, but what can be expected in Honduras, where most politicians do the opposite.

Chapter 5

By David Villacorta

Basically chapter five is about trying to explain how to govern cities and principalities that, prior to being occupied, lived under their own laws

There are three ways of keeping a principality that is accustomed to living under its own laws: destroy it, reside in it, or allow a form of self-government that is friendly to the prince and take tribute from it.

But the only sure way is to destroy it because there is always a chance that its residents will rebel in the name of freedom, which once tasted is never forgotten. Thus, a territory that is used to having a ruler will be easier to control than a more liberal territory, such as a republic.

Chapter 4

Here he wonders how Alexander the Great, after conquering vast land and people, died and let all

of it to his generals, who were smart enough to retain what was conquered and managed to make

it stronger.

I think he basically says that there has to be a delegation, like, have others asses the main prince

to help him make his authority stronger.

Chapter 3

By David VIllacorta


This chapter is much longer than the first two, therefore it is more complex to understand. But

I think the main point is that Nicholas shows the ruthless way to govern in the past, and that, to

some extent it is still used in modern world. For example he says that if they conquer a principilaty

the line of the previous prince has to be wiped out. Meaning killing all of their relatives, this is in

order to avoid a future rise conducted by the defeated prince.

The other interesting point is that he explains how it is easier to control a population with the

same kinds of customs, culture and language. For Maquiavelo it is important to use the force

against the enemies who were defeated but says that there has to be some level of intelligence

when it comes to the way people is to be approached. He sort of mentions something important

to my little understanding, and that is that he says that there are people who are used to live

under hardships he says they should be fine with the new way of ruling. He only warns the prince

against the people who don’t like to be under a bad ruler. This means something to me, it means

that the author is saying that nations and cultures are different. Not all are the same. It also makes

sense in the case of central America, for example it can be said that Honduras and El Salvador

share many customs along with the language, but it’s different in Belize, even though it’s close to

all the other countries, their language and cultural root makes them a different place, so it makes

sense what Nicholas says, that the language makes it harder to rule a country.

I also think it’s interesting how the ancient world was moved by force. Basically, Nicholas was

saying it was right to conquer, make war, create losses, just in order to have power. I think this is

still the same today, only those in different levels, or maybe in a different way I believe. Now the

press and other external powers have the same effect.

Chapter 2

By David Villacorta


Nicholas talks about how the principalities are inherited and how they can be retain. He says that

typically a prince will be loved as long as it maintains the ways his predecessor used to keep the

people happy. He even mentions that if there is a foreign force triying to take away his rule, he can

regain it because the usurper may not satisfy the people’s needs.

I think this shows how the power should be held, by conducting old politics which worked to

his father or previous ruler. Probably for many years the princes ruled and the people were

supposedly happy with their rulers. How can this be understood from a standpoint nowadays?

I wonder about that because it all seems logical: if it worked before, then why shouldn’t it work

now then?

Chapter 1

By David Vilacorta


In the first chapter the author talks about how the principalities are acquired, it is said that it is

either through inheritance or by the force of arms. I think he starts talking about that because this

is like a book, a manual for the prince to learn in his early years how the ways of his nature are.

The author mentions that some states or king downs are given to princes by their fate or virtue.

This is probably so that the prince could know why he is in the position where he is now. I think it’s

interesting to notice that probably the prince grew up in a protective environment where he had

little knowledge of what happened around him.

Mithras

    His worship has lasted over 3,500 years and continues to this day. For almost 500 years his religion vied with Christianity for dominance of Rome and through that the whole of Western Civilization. In ancient times he found followers in the Indian, Persian, and Roman Empires, and as far north as the Russian steppes. Today Mithras counts followers in India, Iran, the United Staes, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. Known as Mitra to the Indians, Mithra to the Iranis and Zarathustrians and Mithras to the Romans, this god is the oldest of all living deities.

 Mithras has been worshipped in more religious traditions than perhaps any other deity in history. Aryan tribal pagans, Hindus, Iranian pagans, Zarathustrians, the Mitanni people of the Middle East, the Romans, and even the Manicheans have all worshipped him. In the Roman Empire, his followers formed one of its own esoteric, moral, and ritual principles which led the followers deeper into the secrets of the god.
    Roman Mithrasism taught concepts of esoteric anatomy and adeptship. It may even have had a secret from of astrology with an alternative system of signs and portents.
    But for all this, occultists and psychic investigators have largely ignored Mithras. Few know anything about him, and fewer still have written more than the odd line or two such as that found in Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code.

This is a religion which very nearly became the foundation of our modern world. The god Mithra contended with Christ on equal terms for almost five hundred years. In fact, modern historians like those fictionalized in The DaVinci Code recognize Mithrasism as the greatest rival to early Christianity - a greater threat even than the religion of Isis. Indeed, in retrospect there is every reason to believe that if Rome had not become Christian, it would have become Mithrasian.
    To combat the threat, Christian writers went to extraordinary lengths and indulged in extremely underhanded tactics. They claimed Mithrasians had stolen Christian theology and ritual, although clearly the Mithrasian religion embraced that theology and those rituals earlier than Christianity's existence. The Christian writers changed the story, saying the Devil, knowing in advance of the coming of the Christian sacrements, imitated them before they existed in order to denigrate them.
    Mithrasism did have a sacrament which strongly resembled a Christian rite. It included wine as a symbol of sacrifical blood and used bread in wafers or small loaves marked with a cross to symbolize flesh. And other parallels abound. Mithrasians called themselves "brother" and were led by a priest called a "father" whose symbols were his staff and ring, his hat, and a hooked sword. Christianity adopted the hook and staff as the shepard's as the Shepard's crook; the hat became stiffened and was called a Miter (the name came from the name of the god, Mithras); the ring remained. Thus was derived the symbolic heraldry of the bishop. Similarly, Mithrasian priests were ruled by a "father of fathers" who lived in Rome. This "father of fathers," like the Pope, was elected by a council of priests. The religion of Mithras, though, set the number of that council at ten. In many other ways the Mithrasians predated the Christians in precisely those areas which are supposedly identifiably and uniquely Christian.
    But there were many differences, too. Mithras appealed to a different kind of follower than Christ. He offered a salvation based not only on faith and compassion, but also on knowledge and valor. In this he appealed not only to the poor, the slave and the freedman, but to the traditionalist Roman aristocracy, soldiers, and honest merchants as well. Even some Emperors followed him. Mithras posed no threat to the traditions and civilization of Rome. The new god made peace with the old gods, Jupiter, Saturn, Oceanus, Venus, and Sol. He made peace, too, with the newer gods, Isis and Serapis.
    Christ made no such accommodation. When the Christians gained ascendancy, they took the churches of Isis and made them their own. They destroyed all the liturgies of other gods. And they attacked Mithras. They attacked his temples with axes. They smashed the sacred ststuary. They burned his books and attacked his followers. They dumped rubbish and the refuse of graveyards in his temples to desecrate them, and built their own churches on the ruins of Mithrasian temples. In one case they murdered his priest and left the corpse on the altar. They sought in every way to wipe the memory of the god Mithras from the face of the earth.
    But in the end, they failed. The temples remained and during the 20th century have yielded up their secrets to psychic investigators and wiccans. Despite attempts to destroy it, Mithra's secret lives on the Internet now, as invincible as the god's title "invictus" promised. Mithra's secret has remained untouched, pure, and open to those who seek it.
Mithra was the most important Zoroastrian god on the side of Truth. He was the god of contracts and keeping your promises, like the German god Tyr. He's related to the Hindu god Mitra, mentioned in the Rig Veda, who was also a god of honesty and contracts. Because the farming people of the Persian Empirewere always fighting with the nomads around them, Mithra also began to represent civilization, order, and living in one place as opposed to crime, confusion, and always moving around (this is from the point of view of the settled people! the nomads weren't really criminals).

The Persian army, and later theParthian and the Sassanianarmies, believed that since Truth was on their side, so was Mithra, and West Asian soldiers often sacrificed to Mithra and prayed to him.

When Roman soldiers fought in the East (that is, in West Asia), they saw their enemies praying to Mithra. They thought he must be a very strong god, and began trying to take him over for themselves. They didn't know much about Zoroastrianism, though, so they worshipped Mithras (they called him Mithras) very differently from the way the Persians worshipped him.

Boston tea party

In 1770, American protests led to Parliament's repeal of theTownshend duties — except for the duty on tea retained by the British as a matter of principle. The colonists demonstrated their displeasure with the remaining tax by drinking smuggled tea. The effectiveness of American resistance was shown in the precipitous decline in tea sales in the colonies — a drop of 70 percent over three years.

The Boston Tea Party was a direct action by colonists in Boston, a town in the British colony of Massachusetts, against the British government and the monopolistic East India Company that controlled all the tea imported into the colonies. On December 16, 1773, after officials in Boston refused to return three shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, a group of colonists boarded the ships and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor. The incident remains an iconic event of American history, and other political protests often refer to it.

The Tea Party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, especially because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives. Protesters had successfully prevented the unloading of taxed tea in three other colonies, but in Boston, embattled Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinsonrefused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain. He apparently did not expect that the protestors would choose to destroy the tea rather than concede the authority of a legislature in which they were not directly represented.