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.
30 nov 2011
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.
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?
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.
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.
16 nov 2011
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).
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.
15 nov 2011
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.
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)