A Defense of Cultural Intelligence

Writen by Stephen Ainsah-Mensah

When humans set off to address fundamental issues about what and how life is to be, two important questions exercise the conscience though a middle-ground question could arise from these two. One question is: ‘how do we make humans the measure of all things for now and for things that are to come?’ The other question is: ‘how do we make nature the measure of all things for now and for things that are to come?’

The first question submits the direction of nature to the boundless will and self-determination of humans. The second question submits the drift of human development to the divine instructions of nature. The first question leads to an individualized culture - a state of affairs that lifts personal will and determination to the status of culture. The second question leads to a cooperative culture, the culture of sharing. These two different questions bring about the mystery in humans and dismiss the point that human nature is of a determinate form. Moreover, the questions are at the core of some of the confusion and conflict between two cultures, one largely individualized, and the other largely cooperative. Unresolved confusion and conflict could lead to war. A moderate position can be seen, which combines ingredients of both the first and second questions with the hope of generating a balance.

The present discussion will focus on the first question, that is, the question of an individualized culture.

Every living thing develops from one state to another in order to support the props of life. Humans, in particular, demonstrate this trait so clearly. Once we grow, both physically and mentally, development gets wedded to growth. Development is a more sophisticated human trait compared to growth. Generally, we regard growth as a change in size of a structure - from a smaller to a larger structure; but development has to do with a progress to a new level of advancement of a structure, an advancement that shows that the structure in question has - for better, not for worse - attained a glorious sophistication. Humans, therefore, develop to affirm this point.

It appears that since development is a natural necessity of every human, the collective human development is doubtless. Once we are all developing, life will be more sophisticated, advanced, better, cherished in all corners of the world. Moreover, any bestial instincts in humans will be progressively expunged and replaced by the rational instincts of peace and love. But the principle of development is not a fixed principle; it is varied within the context of an equally varied culture. In this sense, development ought to be viewed as culturally instructed. For this reason, any attack by one culture on another culture on the basis that the aggressor’s culture is the best neglects the two important questions that exercise the conscience of humans, as stated above. The neglect indicates a surge in arrogance, and, perhaps, ignorance.

Development need not push aside the cultural paradigm and stress on the atomistic individual as the route to development. An individualized culture, meaning a culture that is projected in countless ways by the distinctive doings of every person, presupposes the mastery of one’s self in any number of ways to face the challenges of life. By mastering the self, by advancing mental effort, the course of an individual’s action is expected to be largely mind-dependent; emotional endeavour gets sidelined, so too the idea of sharing. The creative instincts of a person, his/her ability to coordinate a definite consequence, are chiefly judged to emanate from an antecedent mental reflection. Herein lies the notion of an individualized culture.

But in order to pursue wants, in order to live according to personal tastes, individual minds have to deliberate differently. And since individual wants are very different from one another, it stands to reason that an individualized culture is undefined in content. Whatever pleases the self, the ego, much as it doesn’t conflict with other individuals’ mind-determined pursuits, is good for contributing towards the individualized culture. An individualized culture is full of self-determination though it is also full of confrontations with nature.

If to advance in life means a kind of mental reflection that enables one to attain a high level of personal development, then the secrets of nature, in whichever way it is humanly understood, have to submit to humans’ will. The difficulty in this lifestyle is that it does not limit the cognitive ability of humans face-to-face with nature. It prompts mental ingenuity to overrule the acts of nature. The search for the secrets of nature becomes a restless ambition. Morality, social responsibility, are judged within the scope of self-determination, not the mystic workings of nature.

What may have eluded the conscience is that nature is there for all time; and cognitive ability - or to use the more popular word, intelligence - has many faces to it. An obvious failing of the theses of intelligence inheres in the application of psychometry to judge a person’s level of intelligence. Psychometry insults the moral and spiritual basis of intelligence within either an individualized or a cooperative culture. Psychometry presumes that humans are encased in a mental powerhouse, a powerhouse that can be statistically measured, a powerhouse that is personal, that is a biological privilege; yet psychometry fails to reckon the gracious alliance that ought to exist between a person and the natural environment.

John is privileged in mental acumen because his biological structure has the advanced features that, by necessity, yield a high intelligence quotient (IQ), proponents of psychometric intelligence are prepared to argue. To see the immediate flaw in this contention, one has to understand that even with the genuine requirements of an individualized culture, self-determination, the will to conquer the secrets of nature, could take any number of ways in connection with any constructive direction that the mind commissions the agent in question. Should my mind direct me to engage in competitive sports and excel in this area instead of engaging in complex mathematical computations or logical analysis, then I am professing intelligence within the limits of an individualized culture. Am I, for goodness sake, expected to prove my intellectual insight by subscribing to the bogus tenets of psychometry? A similar argument can be advanced to explain the spirited intellectual pursuits of an agent in the area of science, the arts, any kind of entertainment, or any kind of morally right pursuit. One needs to respect and admit all such pursuits, and, thus, rid intelligence of any bias, any narrow definitions.

The theses of intelligence - and worse still, the theses of intelligence quotient - are inauspicious endeavours; for they provoke suspicions about the motives of their proponents. On the basis that few selected parameters - such as math, logic, subjective aptitude tests - are used to appraise a person’s intelligence, one is bound to conclude that IQ fouls a morally grounded and socially responsible culture, whether the culture in question is an individualized culture or a cooperative culture. Nevertheless, a culture built on the question of IQ may not be that bad should IQ incorporate any element of human action, mental or physical, that bears marks of creativity in any way. Also, the question of an individualized culture or a cooperative culture takes account of the natural environment though in varying measures. And this will explain that intelligence seeks to adapt to the natural environment whenever changes in the latter occur.

My meaning of cultural intelligence should, by now, be clear. Cultural intelligence seeks to avoid many of the pitfalls of IQ. The turn of intelligence for the better - which is a given - needs the unbroken service of the natural environment. Intelligence, thereby, becomes dynamic, a practical thing that conforms to cultural constructions. Intelligence quotient, or variations of it, is an unduly technical doctrine that hoists a dominant academic culture on numerous facets of life. An intelligence that obeys the doctrine of IQ forces itself to evolve largely in abstractions without a kindred connection with the natural environment. The agent becomes progressively technical, dry in social networks, full of machine traits. Whatever culture humans have happened to situate themselves has evolved the blessings of intelligence. To respect this point is in keeping with human decency.

About The Author

Mr. Ainsah-Mensah has worked in various capacities mostly in Canada and now in China. He is an education consultant, race relations consultant, projects coordinator, writer, post secondary instructor in business courses and life skills, and critical thinking. He is currently the principal of Handan-Lilac Education Group in China.

kamch22@yahoo.ca

German Memory in Asia: Memories of the Old Europe

Writen by Rajkumar Kanagasingam

While we were passing a junction, the driver told, he wanted to visit a deity, because he had made a vow some time back and turned the vehicle towards a more isolated passage.

Though he was Catholic by religion his faith in deity worship is not strange in Sri Lanka. Ancient nature worship and Hindu traditions are deeply rooted in the daily life of many people.

Steffani, a German Praktikum (Internship) student and Romy were watching intently what was happening in that small temple of deity worship. But the deity and nature worship is not strange to Europe. Before Christianity was introduced into Europe, there were deities and also everywhere a variety of Pagan religious practices.

Pagan practices were only abolished when the Pagan temples were demolished by the later emperors of the Roman Empire and others in the Europe. Germanic Pagan religion played its own part in ancient Germany.

Germanic paganism refers to the religious practices of the Germanic nations preceding Christianization. The well documented form of Germanic paganism is 10th and 11th century Norse paganism. There are various references found in the ancient writings of Germanic peoples and in Roman descriptions. The information can be supplemented with archaeological findings and from the remnants of pre-Christian beliefs in later folklore.

Germanic paganism was a polytheistic religion with similarities to other European and West-Asian pagan traditions, such as Finnish paganism, Sami religion, Slavic paganism, Baltic paganism, Roman paganism, Greek paganism and Vedic religion. The principal gods are known as Odin, Thor and Tyr.

The surviving accounts indicate spectacular human sacrifices. A unique eye-witness account of Germanic human sacrifice survives in Ibn Fadlan’s account of a Rus ship burial, where a slave-girl had volunteered to accompany her master with his burial.

The Heimskringla tells of Swedish King Aun who sacrificed nine of his sons in an effort to prolong his life until his subjects stopped him from killing his last son Egil. According to Adam of Bremen, the Swedish kings sacrificed male slaves every ninth year during the Yule sacrifices at the Temple at Uppsala.

The Swedes had the right not only to elect kings but also to depose them, and both King Domalde and King Olof Tratalja are said to have been sacrificed after years of famine. Odin was associated with death by hanging, and a possible practice of Odinic sacrifice by strangling has some archeological support in the existence of bodies perfectly preserved by the acid of the Jutland peat bogs in Denmark, into which they were cast after having been strangled. An example is Tollund Man. However, there were no written accounts that explicitly interpret the cause of these strangling, which could obviously have other explanations.

Limited Edition Art Prints - An Inexpensive Way to Invest in Art

Writen by Patrick Mooney

Many people enjoy collecting items such as coins, stamps, and art for the pure beauty, enjoyment, or for investment reasons. Many would like to do so, but are unable because of the high price involved. Obviously, owning an original painting by Salvador Dali or Claude Monet would cost millions. Even originals by lesser-known artists such as Tim Cox and Nancy Dunlop Cawdrey will cost thousands of dollars. Therefore, collecting art might seem to be only for the wealthy.

But there is an option for those that may not have the means to purchase original art. That option is limited edition art prints. Some limited edition prints sell for as low as $50. Many artists will allow their original art to be reproduced in a set amount (for example, one thousand prints) and after they have been printed, will “break the mold”, meaning they will never be printed again. The limited availability give the prints more value, making it an obvious way for an artist to profit further from their talents. I can attest that the appreciation of these prints can be absolutely amazing in this age of Ebay and other online trading sites. Once they are no longer available through conventional retail outlets, they move to something called the “secondary market”. The secondary market can consist of consumers or dealers that purchased them when they first became available. Once they move to the secondary market, the value can double, triple, or even quadruple. A good example is the Texas based artist G. Harvey who specializes in Western art. His reproductions are in such demand that they usually sell out the day that they are released.

Art prints are available in a variety of media but paper and canvas prints are the most popular. Most paper prints are reproduced on a sturdy, almost cardboard-like paper. They are usually the most inexpensive prints available. While most are reasonably priced ($50-$150), some can cost hundreds of dollars. The price depends upon the size (smaller prints are cheaper) and the reputation of the artist. Canvas prints are paper prints that are soaked onto a canvas base, making them look very much like the original. Have you ever looked at art on a wall wondering if it was an original painting? Most likely, it was a canvas reproduction. Most limited editions come with a certificate of authenticity signed by the artist. The print is also numbered, such as 123/1000, meaning it was the 123rd print out of one thousand created. By the way, limited editions are the opposite of open editions, which can be printed over and over forever.

Another version of an art print is called an “artist proof”. An artist proof is designated in this manner: the artist instructs a publisher to make one thousand reproductions of an original painting. The publisher will print the first one hundred or so and stop to show the artist his work. The artist will usually ok the result and instruct the publisher to go ahead and produce the rest of the edition. Those first one hundred prints are designated as artist proofs. They are exactly the same in appearance as regular limited editions except for possibly an “AP” in the bottom corner. Artist proofs are highly coveted by collectors. If one desires a print for cosmetic reasons, they would be better off purchasing a regular limited edition instead of an artist proof as artist proofs are higher priced.

Like I mentioned, collecting art prints can be highly rewarding for a variety of reasons.

Patrick Mooney operates a horse and western art website http://www.ElegantHorsePictures.com

Shakespeare’s Art: Understanding ‘King Lear’

Writen by Charlotte Evans

Students of Shakespeare have spent a very great deal of time debating the meanings of “Othello”, “King Lear”, and “Macbeth”. The wealth of criticism of any one of his plays can be overwhelming to the casual student. I cite my own experience as a high school student struggling to write credible criticism of “King Lear” whilst juggling History, German, and General Studies reading and assignments. Students benefit from guidance concerning what it is best; at the very least to make best use of the time they have, opting perhaps to read the very best sources only.

Now language, spoke or written, is entirely a reflection of individual experience. We speak and write words we have picked up, first from whom ever taught use to speak; later from those we talk to and from those books which we have read. Consciously or unconsciously, directly or indirectly, we also use language to speak and write about our experiences.

Fiction writers use language, no way in exception to this rule. However many planes they may have crossed using their imagination and knowledge, their fiction will be the product of their experiences. It is important then, for students of literature to learn about a writer’s experiences - how they lived, and what they read being the two points of focus in any such study of a writer. Secondary to reading the text apart from knowledge of the writer to consider language in the abstract, it is necessary for students, searching for meaning, to consider texts with knowledge of their writers.

Considering fiction writers’ sources is a practice never more crucial than when studying Shakespeare’s plays. Firstly, it is a relatively easy exercise (and therefore good practice), as none of Shakespeare’s plays are entirely original. Secondly, it is important for most students studying Shakespeare to express their own opinions about the texts. Examiners, certainly of A-Levels, (so I am told), are interested in the thoughts of the candidate, and therefore do not look favorably on regurgitated criticism from leading Shakespeare scholars. Thirdly, knowing something of Shakespeare likely sources is immensely useful at opening paths to substantiated judgments on meaning; it can lead to a whole new level of understanding, from which it is even easier to appreciate bard’s genius.

The discourse to follow on Shakespeare’s sources for three of his best known tragedies is, I admit, a regurgitation of my last three years of studying English. I decided that treading familiar ground was most prudent at this stage in the life of “Arguendo”. I hope to build my own confidence as a writer, as I build your confidence as a reader. Not withstanding that these three tragedies are amongst Shakespeare’s most thought provoking plays, I hope that this essay will indeed provided knowledge to add to you enjoyment of them.

One of the problems or, depending on your perspective, one of the advantages of studying Shakespeare, is that relatively little is known about his life. In particular, scholars are uncertain when he wrote the majority of his plays and sonnets, which leaves, potentially, a substantial gap between Shakespeare’s intended meaning and our own understanding of his work.

The best estimates for the dates that he wrote span several years. He must have written “Macbeth” sometime between 1603, the ascension of James I, and the first known performance of the play in 1611; “King Lear” within three years of the first court performance on December 1, 1606; according to a note in the First Quarto edition of 1608. “Othello” was written about two years before it was performed, apparently for the first time, by the King’s Men in the Banqueting house at Whitehall on November 1, 1604.

The approximate dates for the production of Shakespeare’s plays, scholars have largely derived from the apparent contextual details in the plays themselves. It is possible, then to consider and to use these dates in arguments about Shakespeare’s meaning. Context is an important source for many writers.

Shakespeare’s Context

“this place is too cold for hell.” –(Mac.2.3.13-14)

“What can you say to draw a third more opulent than your sisters?” –(Lr.1.1.80-81)

“My blood begins my safer guides to rule, And passion having my best judgment collied, Assays to lead the way.” –(Oth.2.3.186-188)

These three quotations have meaning set in the context of Shakespeare’s time. This higher level of meaning it is important to know something of the ideas and beliefs of Shakespeare’s England; not surprisingly, it is most important to be aware of the religious beliefs of the time. Perhaps the most fundamental of these was that the king was appointed by god; ruled with divine right. In France the belief in the divinity of the monarchy extended so far that the king’s touch was believed to cure illness. In England, the theory of divine right was no less prevalent: Elizabethan propaganda emphasized the relationship between the monarch and the land. James I was, moreover, quite obsessed with the theory of Divine Right: hence one of the central themes of Shakespeare’s plays, written at about the time of James’s ascension, is about the monarch’s relationship with the land, about who has the right to rule.

The Porter grumbles about the knocking at the gate: “if a man were the porter of hell’s gate, he should have old turning the key.” He asks: “who’s there in the Devil’s namein th’other Devil’s name?” and then declares “But this place is too cold for hell”. These comments are all ironic, as the audience must realize, given what has taken place in Macbeth’s castle. The Porter has become the keeper of hell’s gate, as he is the keeper of Macbeth’s castle. Macbeth is not only guilty of regicide, he is guilty of murdering a kinsman, as all Scottish thanes were relatives of the king. Shakespeare is ironic when he has the Porter say it is “too cold” to be Hell. The ninth circle of hell was reserved for those who betrayed their kinsmen. The guilty were frozen in ice for eternity as punishment for their crime.

After King Duncan is murdered (Mac.2.2) it is no coincidence that Shakespeare has characters in this scene, Macduff and Lennox, discuss the weather in the next scene: the “unruly” night that has just passed. Shakespeare creates the impression that there were dark forces at work through mention of “strange screams of death, and prophesying with accents terrible, of dire combustion and confused events”. The weather is symbolic: because the king is murdered, God’s chosen is murdered, according to the theory of Divine Right, there is disorder in the kingdom; represented here by a storm. After renouncing his authority formerly King Lear finds that his kingship has truly been usurped by his daughters (Lr.3.2). He finds himself going slowly mad, in a storm, which has many characteristics similar to those featured in the storm alluded to in the scene after Duncan’s death (Mac.2.3.53-59): the verbs Lear uses to command the elements - “blow”, “crack”, “rage”, “blow”, “spout till you have drenched our steeples” - suggest this.

The answer to Lear’s love test is (Lr.1.1.86-92) becomes increasingly clear, considering Shakespeare’s handling of the relationship between the king and the kingdom. When he asks each of his daughters what they can say to “win” the largest portion of his kingdom the only correct, the only acceptable answer for a sixteenth century audience is Cordelia’s: “nothing”.

The Theory of Divine Right was one closely linked with that of the Great Chain of Being; the one very much determined the other. According to the Great Chain of Being, in society every man had a place, a social stratum, in which they ought to remain for their lives. The king was the highest authority in the chain; the highest authorities in the church and in the state, the archbishops and bishops, and the noblemen occupied the second strata, to the parish clergymen and gentry; down to the poorest man. Above everyone, however, was God. The king’s role was to protect the kingdom in God’s name: hence the Theory of Divine Right. The law of primogeniture was thus very important in Shakespeare’s society, to keep the Great Chain in order; without endeavoring to explain the feudal system, it suffices to say that land to remain united was to pass the eldest male child, or to the husband of the eldest daughter. Lear does not protect his kingdom by unburdening himself of his divinely appointed authority: he brings war and division; not only in Ancient Britain, but in his family. The subplot involving the Duke of Gloucester and his two sons further emphasizes the symbolic relationship between the king and the land that emulating that between the father and his children.

When studying “Othello” one of the important contextual details is that colored people were uncommon in Shakespeare’s England: Christendom, Christian Europe, had been at war with Muslims for many centuries in and around the Holy Land, and increasingly in the Mediterranean, whereabouts the main drama of “Othello” is set to unfold: on Cyprus. The racial tensions gave way to superstitions and stereotyping: Othello apparently breaks the latter for all Shakespeare presents him displaying composure and control over his emotions; marrying for love; proving successful and intelligent as a military leader. Yet, it is already clear that Othello is destabilized by Iago and reverting to racial type for a sixteenth century audience (Oth.2.3), by giving way to fists of passionate jealously of his wife; and moments of other intense and negative emotions, including anger, when he discovers his soldiers brawling.

Literally and metaphorically, Othello’s “blood” begins to rule him when he is removed from the cultured and safe environment of Venice: Europe. At least this is what the 16th century audience would have surmised.

Some commentators have argued that “Pliny’s Natural History”, which Philemon Holland translated in 1601, probably provided the details that Shakespeare uses to enhance with a degree of authenticity Othello’s exotic adventures and alien origin (consider the explanation that Othello gives to Desdemona about the origin of the handkerchief that he gives to her).

However, Geoffrey Bullough has maintained that Shakespeare probably consulted John Pory’s translation of “A Geographical Historie of Africa” by Leo Africanus; in which there is a distinction drawn between the Moors of the northern and those from the southern regions of the country. Africanus also describes both groups of Moors as candid and unaffected but prone to jealousy. Shakespeare’s Othello appears to be quite a faithful rendering of this characterization. Othello is candid and unaffected while in Venice; so much so that he passes as a Venetian, as a European, sufficiently to have achieved prestige as a general. In his speech to Brabantio and the senators in Venice regarding his clandestine union with Desdemona, he is indeed candid and unaffected

It is apparent that Shakespeare was familiar with fifteenth century and sixteenth century accounts of the wars between Venice and Turkey, particularly the battle of Lepanto in 1571, in which the Venetians in alliance with the European Catholic states temporarily regained control of the island of Cyprus.

Being thus aware of the sources that Shakespeare is likely to have used for “Othello”, the perspective or meaning of the play is that much more clearly defined. The cause of Othello’s madness is diagnosable; the symptoms are those behavioral characteristics of Moors, according to contemporary accounts. Once Othello leaves Venice, he becomes symbolically isolated from the positive influence of Christian European culture; Othello’s nature begins to take hold of him. When Iago preys upon him, Othello’s reversion to a racial stereotype is apparently dramatically increased.

The lesson for Shakespeare’s contemporaries is that Moors will only revert to erratic behavior if they are first isolated from the European society and second treated with contemptuous cruelty and abused because of their heritage and origin. Hardly a racist attitude within the context of his time; to be likened to Shakespeare’s apparent sympathy toward the villain, Shylock, in “The Merchant of Venice”. At the very least, Shakespeare offers Shylock the same chance that the likes of Iago, Edmund and Richard III have to justify their actions; and Shylock’s is quite reasoned when he explains that Antonio has wronged him because:

SHYLOCK I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions, fed with the same food, hurt with the same means, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us do we not bleed? If you trick us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we shall resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute; and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction. –(3.1.51-64).

The suggestion that the Jew follows the example of the Christian establishes a hierarchy of sorts. With the Christian above the Jew; it places the Christian in a position of responsibility and culpability for the actions of his Jewish subordinates. The Jews follow the Christians example: when the Christian persecutes the Jew, the Jew will likewise persecute the Christian; as the Christians persecute Shylock, Shylock persecutes Antonio.

Shakespeare’s perspective is thus not anti-Semitic, relative to the context in which he lived as a Christian. He is critical of the treatment of the Jews more than he is condemning of the people or the faith. Considering that the Nazis in Germany promoted “The Merchant of Venice” as evidence that Shakespeare was anti-Semitic, the importance of considering Shakespeare’s sources and the context in which he was writing is practical, as well as of literary significance.

When the meaning is properly understood by means of contextual knowledge, the artwork gains in aesthetic value. The crimes of Macbeth, the weakness of Othello, the madness of King Lear, and the morals of “The Merchant of Venice” are clarified. The plays are more enjoyable; the morals are comprehensible, sympathetic, human, and considered. The message is clear and Shakespeare’s genius is polished; restored to all its glory.

Dr. Evans
April 24, 2005

Dr. Evans has a PhD in English Literature and an MA in History. She lives in New York City and is a freelance writer. Visit her web site at http://www.charlotte-evans.com for more information.

The Life of Francisco Goya

Writen by Mike McDougall

Francisco Jos

Templars

Writen by Philip Gardiner

Whether stars of the Disney film National Treasure or pawns of modern day political and commercial propaganda, the Knights Templar have taken root as one of the world’s leading mystery groups. But what is the truth? Did they really have a great secret? Did they really hide treasure? Were they really guardians of the Holy Bloodline? Let’s take a look.

Originally supposedly a group of nine knights (debatable), taken from the ruling nobility in the region of France known as Champagne who collected themselves together in Jerusalem around 1118 AD and formed the now infamous Knights Templar. All of this cannot be totally proven from the texts - however it is repeated so often that it becomes true. In all likelihood they had been formed in France years before.

They were pledged, it is said, to commit their lives and work to a strict code of rules and on the face of it were simply ordained to ensure the safe passage of pilgrims to the Holy Land. The knights request this task of the first King Baldwin of Jerusalem, who refuses. He then dies supposedly under mysterious circumstances only to be replaced by Baldwin II who then almost immediately grants them this privilege. For the next nine (there’s that number again) years the knights excavate beneath the Temple of Solomon (which didn’t ever exist) in complete secrecy and the Grand Master returns to Europe, supposedly with secrets that have been hidden for hundreds of years. Very quickly the knights achieve a special dispensation from the Pope to allow them to charge interest on loans - indicating their swift path to wealth. Soon the great Cathedral building period arrives across Europe with the new found architectural “secrets” discovered by the crusaders. This new found knowledge may very well have come from some of the discoveries made by the Templars, especially when we consider that the man responsible for energizing the building program was none other than St. Bernard - the same Bernard who gave the Order of the Knights Templar their rules and who was related by blood to various members. The same St. Bernard indicated in the propaganda of the Arthurian and Grail literature.

The Templars grew in wealth and power. Their land holding and banking system made them one of the most powerful and feared groups in Europe. Virtually nobody could match their international strength. According to George F. Tull in Traces of the Templars they were also “well placed to obtain relics” as they held the respect of nobility and had many strategically placed premises across the Holy Land.

Near Loughton-on-Sea in England there are several Templar connected sites. The Temple here was “well provided with liturgical books, plate and vessels of silver, silver gilt, ivory and crystal, vestments, frontals and altar cloths. Among the relics kept there were two crosses containing fragments of the True Cross and a relic of the Holy Blood” whatever that might have been - it was not a bloodline. Tull also tells us of how some of these relics entered Britain, “Sometimes the ships returned with more specialized cargo, as when in 1247 Br. William de Sonnac, Master of the Temple in Jerusalem, sent a distinguished Knight Templar to bring to England and present to King Henry III ‘a portion of the Blood of our Lord, which He shed on the Cross for the salvation of the world, enclosed in a handsome crystalline vessel.’ The relic was authenticated under seal by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the bishops, abbots and nobles of the Holy Land.” In Surrey the Templars held land known then as Temple Elfold with 192 acres of arable land. Here again in 1308 there was mention of a grail and a chalice. It is therefore obvious that part of the wealth of the Templars came from the propaganda tools of the medieval reliquary business, proving their astute business acumen and their ability to root out those tools. They were also incidental in spreading the cult of St. George, especially when we consider that they knew of his shrine in Lydda.

But in the early fourteenth century King Philip of France organized their downfall and the supposed secrets and wealth of the Templars disappears.

At their trials the Templars were not only accused of worshipping the sacred head, but also the veneration of the serpent. As Andrew Sinclair points out in The Secret Scroll, another Templar emblem was the foliated staff of Moses, the very same staff, which turned into a serpent and was itself emblematic of the serpent religious cult and healing.

The Rosslyn Missal, written by Irish monks in the twelfth century shows in itself Templar crosses with great dragons and sun discs. Upon the Secret Scroll itself is the symbol of the twelve tribes of Israel, the breastplate of Aaron (who’s serpent staff is said to be in the Ark) with twelve squares signifying the twelve tribes surmounted by a serpent. The serpent, ruling the tribes, “. . . the Serpent as a symbol obtained a prominent place in all the ancient initiations and religions. Among the Egyptians, it was s symbol of Divine Wisdom.” (The Secret Scroll, Andrew Sinclair, which of course has been dated by scholars to the 16th or even 18th century.) Many people believe that quite a few of the Templars and their secrets escaped to Scotland and the dawning of a new age of Freemasonry emerged in later years - thought to be directly from the Templars.

In the year 1314 King Edward of England invades Scotland, hoping to bring an end to the border battles. Meeting the Scottish army at Bannock Burn he is surprised by a force of well-trained men fighting for the Scots. The tide is turned and Scotland achieves independence, even if only for three years. The standard history has it that these well-trained men that turned the tide against the well-trained English army were nothing more than camp followers and servants. Many though, now believe that these were the famous knights Templar, who had taken root in Scotland and hidden away from Catholic tyranny. Strangely immediately after the battle Robert the Bruce, the new Scottish King, rewards the Sinclair family with lands near Edinburgh and Pentland. The very same lands associated with hundreds of Templar graves, sites, symbols and much more, such as Balantrodoch (Temple.)

An indication of the popular liking for the Templars is shown in the Peasant’s Revolt of Wylam Tyler in 1381 AD when a mob marched in protest of the oppressive taxes placed upon them. Strangely they did not harm the old Templar buildings, but instead turned their attentions on those of the Catholic Church. In one instance they actually carried things out of a Templar church in London to burn the items in the street, rather than damage the building. It may be that this uprising was a natural incident, or it may be that it was inspired by the actions of a hidden and now secret society of the Templars - hidden because of the new Catholic hatred towards them. If it is the case that the Templars did indeed inspire this revolt then, even though they were not successful, they tried again a hundred years later and forced the Reformation. It was around this period (15th Century) that the first records of Scottish and York Masonic meetings appear.

However lets take a rather sideways look at the history and symbolism of the Templars.

There are some strange links between Sumerian iconography and Templar symbolism, which need to be voiced. The most obvious Templar image is that if the two poor knights seated upon a horse, which is very similar to the idea and concept of two riders seen in ancient Sumeria. This was purely a tactical device in warfare - although there may be some truth in believing that it has origin in the “balance” hypothesis of the “twins.” The Templar cross is equally seen in many Sumerian images normally associated with an upturned crescent moon. The Fleur de Lys is also a common image as well as bees, which were common also to the Merovingians. The pentagram is also seen in the images of both and symbolized the essence of the Merovingians as the ‘Shining Ones.’

Another symbol seen in various forms from Sumeria to France is the Abraxus - a figure with snakes for legs - a symbol used for gods such as Oannes and not surprisingly this later became the symbol of the Grand Master of the Templar Order. What could this mean? That the head of the Order of the Templars saw himself as the chief of the serpents? In conjunction with the fact that the Templars also used the serpent symbol of eternity and immortality - the snake eating its own tail - then we have a serpent secret being held by the very highest of Christian guardians.

The Cross of Lorraine, a symbol used by the Templars before their usual “Maltese” style cross is seen in Sumeria as a symbol for kingship. These influences must have been picked up whilst the Templars were in the Middle East and then utilized later on. We know that they used the sign, as in the trials in the early 1300’s had the prisoners etching the symbol into the cell walls. What other ancient secrets did they collect?

The Cross of Lorraine was the emblem of heraldry for Rene D’Anjou, said by Charles Peguy to represent the arms of both Christ and Satan and the blood of both (from an article by Boyd Rice entitled The Cross of Lorraine: Emblem of the Royal Secret). It is also said to incorporate the symbol phi or the Golden Ration of Sacred Geometry - so very important to the Masons. Rene d’Anjou was keenly aware and interested in many things occult. He led a search for new (old) hermetic texts. The Cross of Lorraine was therefore taken on by Rene, and subsequently by Marie de Guise the wife of James Stuart V (parents of Mary Queen of Scots) for of its occult symbolism. This occult symbolism showed the cross to be representative of poison. Proof of this meaning comes also from the fact that it became an icon used by chemists (originally alchemists) on the bottles of poisonous substances. The idea of course is hidden in the duality. Why would monarchs and Templars use a sign for poison, if that poison did not have an opposite side? That of cure! Later on in the early twentieth century Aleister Crowley, the arch Magus and self proclaimed Alchemist would assign this very same symbol as the Sigil of Baphomet. The Cross of Lorraine is thought to be a sign of secrets; a sign of the Angelic Race, which came down and posited wisdom and the secrets of immortality upon the Royal Bloodline. According to Boyd Rice it is “a sigil of that Royal Secret, the doctrine of the Forgotten Ones.” And for this reason it seems peculiar that in the 1940’s Charles de Gaulle should make it the official symbol of the French Resistance.

We were playing with the standard Templar cross (Croix Patte) one day in our minds, wondering why and how it had evolved. We knew that it had eight points and all that this entailed but we wondered about what Fulcanelli had believed - that Gothic architecture was a three dimensional esoteric message. Due to the fact that the Templar mysteries emerged from many places including Arabic or Muslim influences, Judaic kabalistic beliefs and even Egyptian sacred rites, we were sure that there had to be another message enclosed within this simple shape. Basing the assumption upon the three dimensional aspect and wondering if there were any links to probably one of the greatest mysteries in the world we suddenly thought; if you cut out the cross from a piece of paper and lay it flat you have the two dimensional image. If you then take hold of the cross in the very center and lift it, you end up with a perfect pyramid - a symbol of Egyptian and Masonic wisdom and central to immortality. But, on some Templar crosses the edges are angled inwards to give the eight points. We thought that the pyramid of Giza had straight walls, until we looked deeper. The Great Pyramid at Giza holds a secret architecture - its walls bow inwards! Could it be, we wondered, that the Templar cross also had this hidden symbolism of the Great Pyramid? That it was fashioned to incorporate the three-dimensional geometry spoken of by the likes of Fulcanelli and said to have been spawned into Europe by the Templars and their brothers in the Cistercians? That these mysterious brothers in Gnosticism actually understood the meaning behind the symbolism of the pyramids - that it was symbolic in all aspects of the immortality of the serpent.

Baphomet

A mysterious object said to have been venerated by the Templars and to have been written about extensively over the past 30 years. Thought to be a skull by some.

One possible explanation for the origin of the word could strangely be found in the deserts of Yemen. The people who live here are called the Al-Mahara and they have developed many ways of combating snake poison. The special snake priests are called Raaboot men and they are said to have learned the secret by transition from father to son. Their legends state that they have immunity from snakebites.

If somebody is bitten, then a Raaboot man is called upon, who then sits by the patient along with several others who then chant in a monotone voice “Bahamoot, Bahamoot.” The poison is then vomited up or passed out of the body in the other direction. The Raaboot man then leaves. Again, here as we have pointed out before, the snake is said to have a jewel in its head, indicative of the enlightenment aspect.

Is it not possible that Bahamoot, as a chant for the curing of snakebites, could have made its way through the various cultures and found itself as a word for the ‘head serpent?’ - The same ‘head serpent’ that the Templars worshipped?

If nothing else, then the etymology of these two related items is so similar that it again shows in the language of the serpent cult, a worldwide spread.

Friday the 13th, October 1307, was a terrible day for the Knights Templars as King Philip IV’s men descended upon all of the order’s French holdings: seizing property, and arresting each of its members. Why? Simply because Philip owed them huge amounts of money and had no way of paying them back, and to add to this he had hoped that the infamous Templar treasure would be his.

With the help of his puppet, Pope Clement V, the French king tortured the knights to discover their secrets. Finally to justify his action, the knights were accused of heresy, homosexual practices, necromancy and conducting bizarre rituals such as desecrating the cross - as if to show their lack of faith in this Christian icon. This was, however a method of initiation and not a heretical act.

The most unusual and perplexing evidence they came across however, was the worship of this idol called Baphomet. This strange “thing” - although sometimes referred to as a “cat” or “goat” - was generally seen as a ’severed head.’ Peter Tompkins in The Magic of Obelisks says: “Public indignation was aroused . . . the Templar symbol of Gnostic rites based on phallic worship and the power of directed will. The androgynous figure with a goat’s beard and cloven hooves is linked to the horned god of antiquity, the goat of Mendes.”

The list of charges used by the Inquisition in 1308 reads:

“Item, that in each province they had idols, namely heads.

Item, that they adored these idols or that idol, and especially in their great chapters and assemblies.

Item, that they venerated (them)

Item, that they venerated them as God.

Item, that they venerated them as their Savior.

Item, that they said that the head could save them.

Item, that it could make riches.

Item, that it could make the trees flower.

Item, that it made the land germinate.

Item, that they surrounded or touched each head of the aforesaid idol with small cords, which they wore around themselves next to the shirt or the flesh.”

(Could this cord be like the Hindu cord, symbolic of the serpent?)

Some said it was a man’s head but others a woman’s head. Some said that it was bearded, others non-bearded. Some presumed that it was made from glass and that it had two faces. This general mixing of ideas shows where the idea of the head could have come from. That it was a man’s head or a woman’s, indicates its ‘dual nature’ - and much like the ancient Celtic heads would incline us to the opinion, that it emerged from part of the supposed ancient head cult.

The Celts, it is said, believed that the soul resided in the head. They would decapitate their enemies and keep them as talismans. Probably the best-known head in Celtic lore is that of Bran the Blessed, which was buried outside London - some say Tower Hill - facing towards France. It was put there to see off the plague and disease and to ensure that the land was fertile - the same powers that were attributed to the ‘Green Man.’ ‘Bearded’ and ‘non-bearded’ simply indicates again the dual nature, as does the idea that it was “two-faced,” like the god Janus. It was apparently called Caput 58, (Caput meaning ‘Head’) indicating that there may have been possibly hundreds of them. There are also strong links with Islam at this time; links that the Templars should probably not have made in their supposedly Christian world.

It is also said that the name Baphomet was derived from Mahomet - an Old French corruption of the name of the prophet Muhammad. Others claim that it comes from the Arabic word abufihamet, which means ‘Father of Understanding.’

In all likelihood though Baphomet comes from baphe meaning to submerge and mete meaning wisdom, the baphoment therefore being a device for the Gnostic tradition or belief of being submerged in wisdom, itself associated with the concept of the Sophia or wisdom goddess.

Dionysiac Architects

These are said by Masonic historians to be the prime originators of their guilds. A secretive group or secret society with doctrines said by Manly P. Hall (in Masonic, Hermetic, Quabbalistic & Rosicrucian Symbolical Philosophy) to be similar to the Freemasons. They are thought to have been great builders, reminiscent of the idea of the great builders who escaped India.

It was this secret society, under Hiram Abiff, that supposedly built the Temple of Solomon and erected the great brass pillars now seen as Boaz and Joachim in Masonry. They were also known as the Roman Collegia and were said to have wandered around like the Medieval Masons, building such fantastic places as the Temple of Diana at Ephesus (John Weisse, The Obelisk and Freemasonry.)

Weisse also points out that the Collegia influenced the Islamic building efforts, which were later to become a turning point in Western European architecture after the crusades and possibly via the Collegia’s influence over the Templars amongst others.

These Collegia were also thought to have been known before the Romans in Greece and were said to have worshipped Bacchus. Some even believe that Jesus, when he mentions that he will rebuild the Temple, is pointing out that he too is of the Collegia. Also, considering the Masonic fascination with the Druids, there is little wonder that William Stukely believed them to have been the builders of Stonehenge and other ancient monuments. Many Masonic writers love to associate themselves with the Druids and that they “had a high veneration for the Serpent. Their great god Hu, was typified by that reptile.” George Oliver, Signs and Symbols (Macoy Publishing New York.)

If it is true that the Dionysiac Architects and the Bacchus/Dionysius-worshipping Greek and Roman Collegia - not to mention the later Templar-Freemasonic link - were among the originators of the Freemasons, then it is highly likely that they were linked also with the serpent-worshipping Druids. They were all in fact a later showing of the worldwide serpent cult - the same as those in India, Egypt and elsewhere who all had fantastic building skills and held secrets of the true Elixir. Today we can still see a remnant of this great architectural, serpent-worshipping and secretive cult in the Masons. As George Oliver points out “The Serpent is universally esteemed a legitimate symbol of Freemasonry.”

About the Author

Philip Gardiner is the author of the best selling The Serpent Grail, The Shining Ones, and Gnosis: The Secret of Solomon’s Temple Revealed. He does talks, lectures, has his own radio show and does tours across the world via www.powerplaces.com

Philip has a degree in marketing and 9 diplomas ranging from etymology to holistic medicine. He is hosting the Philip Gardiner’s Forbidden Knowledge Conference UK (FKCUK) in July 2006.

www.philipgardiner.net
www.gardinerosborn.com

Return to Ouvea, New Caledonia

Writen by David Stanley

“Ouvea is everything you’d expect in a South Pacific island. Twenty kilometers of unbroken white sands border the lagoon on the west side of the island and extend far out from shore to give the water a turquoise hue. The wide western lagoon, protected by a string of coral islands and a barrier reef, is the only one of its kind in the Loyalties. On the ocean side are rocky cliffs, pounded by surf, but fine beaches may be found even here. At one point on this narrow atoll only 450 meters separates the two coasts. Traditional circular houses with pointed thatched roofs are still common in the villages”.

Those words appeared in the 1985 edition of my South Pacific Handbook after a visit in 1983. Just over 20 years later I returned to Ouvea to discover that little had changed in this large French colony east of Australia.

Most Ouveans still live in traditional thatched case (houses) and the beach is as dazzling as ever. On my first evening there, as I watched the red fireball set slowly across the lagoon, I felt a strong affinity with my previous visit.

Yet something terrible had happened in my absence. On May 5, 1988, 300 French elite troops stormed a cave near Gossanah in northern Ouvea to rescue 16 gendarmes captured two weeks earlier by Melanesian freedom fighters.

Nineteen Kanaks (the collective name used by the indigenous peoples of New Caledonia) died in the assault, including several who suffered extrajudicial execution at the hands of the French police after being wounded and taken prisoner. None of the hostages had been harmed.

Thus began one of the final chapters of what is now known as the evenements (events) of the 1980s. Three years earlier independence leader Eloi Machoro had been murdered in cold blood by police snipers as he stood outside a rural farmhouse near La Foa, on New Caledonia’s main island, Grand Terre.

By 1987 France had 14,000 troops stationed in its mineral-rich Melanesian colony, one for every five Kanaks. The independence movement was to be crushed one way or another.

When I tried to visit the cave at Gossanah on my recent trip, I was told that the area was taboo to allow the spirits time to rest.

Instead I was permitted to visit the grave of Djoubelly Wea in Gossanah and allowed to take pictures of his home. My host on Ouvea told me the story. Evidently, the hostages had been taken by young Kanak activists from other parts of the island, and the captive gendarmes were brought to Gossanah only because the cave was considered remote.

Residents of the area weren’t involved. Yet when the French police arrived in search of their comrades, they rounded up the people of Gossanah and assembled them on a football field in front of the village church.

There they were tortured for information, and Wea’s father was among those who died of shock. Later 33 Ouveans were sent to prison in France, Djoubelly Wea among them.

These events chastened Kanaks and French alike, and the heads of the main political parties, the Kanak leader Jean-Marie Tjibaou and the representative of the French settlers Jacques Lafleur, were called to Paris by Prime Minister Michel Rocard to negotiate and eventually sign a peace treaty known as the Matignon Accords.

A referendum on independence was promised in 1998, and massive economic aid was to be channeled into the Kanak regions. An amnesty was granted to all those arrested during the troubles, and no investigation into the Ouvea massacre or the murders of several dozen other Kanaks by French settlers or troops would be required.

Fast forward to May 1989, as the top Kanak leaders Jean-Marie Tjibaou and Yeiwene Yeiwene arrive on Ouvea for a commemorative ceremony exactly one year after the massacre.

As the leaders are being received at the chefferie (chiefly house) of Wadrilla near the center of the island, Djoubelly Wea steps forward and shoots the pair dead at point blank range. Wea was reflecting a feeling still palpable in New Caledonia that Tjibaou had sold out to the French and derailed the struggle of independence.

Tjibaou’s bodyguard killed Wea, the final shot of the evenements. Today the chefferie of Wadrilla is much the same as it was in 1989, a large thatched case surrounded by a palisade of driftwood logs.

Across the coastal highway, a large monument has been erected to the 19 Kanak martyrs of 1988. Designed with two curving white walls to resemble a cave, the monument bears the photo, name, and date of birth of each victim.

Their traditional war clubs have been placed on the back side of the monument and their remains are interred below.

No memorial to Jean-Marie Tjibaou exists on Ouvea but the French have constructed a massive cultural center to his memory in their stronghold Noumea.

In fairness, it must be said that Tjibaou only considered the Matignon Accords a temporary stop on the road to independence. His assassination froze the agreement into a sort of permanent solution which the French have used to justify continuing colonial rule ever since.

The promised 1998 referendum was never held. Instead an updated treaty called the Noumea Accord was signed. This postponed the referendum for another 15 or 20 years and promised many things the French government has yet to deliver.

For example, a key provision creating a special New Caledonian citizenship status intended to control immigration from France was declared unconstitutional by a French court in 1999.

Metros (metropolitan French) continue to flood into the territory (in violation of United nations resolutions on the norms of conduct for colonial powers in non-self-governing areas) and Europeans may soon from a clear majority of the population.

Toward the end of my stay I visited the Jean-Marie Tjibaou Cultural Center on the Tina Peninsula, 12 kilometers northeast of New Caledonia’s capital Noumea. Designed by Italian architect Renzo Piano, it was built by French contractors between 1994 and 1998 at a cost of over US$50 million. The center opened on May 4, 1998, 10th anniversary of the assassination of Jean-Marie Tjibaou.

No visitor can help but be impressed by the spectacular botanical garden interwoven with references to Kanak legends which encircles the center’s three villages.

A contemporary art gallery, temporary and permanent exhibitions of Kanak and other Pacific art, a library, an audiovisual room, indoor and outdoor theaters, and a large ceremonial area are only some of the center’s outstanding features.

Yet the Tjibaou Cultural Center presents Kanak culture as a regional folklore rather than a national tradition.

Events such as the Ouvea Massacre and the other murders of the 1980s are barely mentioned. A room in Village Three provides photos and texts on the life of Jean-Marie Tjibaou, but there’s no explanation as to why he was assassinated or the background of his assassin.

The 19th century land seizures and the muscle flexing and maneuvering that have prevented independence are carefully avoided. The highlight for me was an amazing three-meter-high bronze statue of Tjibaou himself, clad in a Roman toga, on a hill overlooking the center.

Tjibaou was the last real Kanak leader, and in a land where the spirits of the dead have an important role in the lives of the living, his soul must be suffering.

==============================================================

David Stanley is the author of Moon Handbooks South Pacific http://www.southpacific.org/pacific.html which has a chapter on New Caledonia. His online guide to New Caledonia may be perused at http://www.southpacific.org/text/new_caledonia.html and his New Caledonia travel photos are on http://www.pacific-pictures.com/new_caledonia/

==============================================================

You have permission to publish this article electronically or in print, free of charge, so long as the byline and resource box are included. Please do not use this article without the byline and resource box. Many thanks!

Arthur Koestler

Writen by Robert Baird

ARTHUR KOESTLER:

Humanitarian, historian and scientist are just a few of the labels associated with this most excellent man of letters. Here is a quote from his book The Act of Creation.

“The oldest and most fundamental of all tricks is to disguise people in costumes and to put them on a stage with masks or paint on their faces; the audience is thereby given the impression that the events represented are happening here and now, regardless of how distant they really are in space and time. The effect of this procedure is to induce a lively bisociated condition in the minds of the audience. The spectator knows, in one compartment of his mind, that the people on the stage are actors, whose names are familiar to him; and he knows that they are “acting” for the express purpose of creating an illusion in him, the spectator. Yet in another compartment of his mind he experiences fear, hope, pity, accompanied by palpitations, arrested breathing, or tears — all induced by events which he knows to be pure make-believe. It is indeed a remarkable phenomenon that a grown-up person, knowing all the time that he faces a screen onto which shadows are projected by a machine, and knowing furthermore quite well what is going to happen at the end–for instance, that the police will arrive just in the nick of time to save the hero– should nevertheless go through agonies of suspense, and display the corresponding bodily symptoms. It is even more remarkable that this capacity for living in two universes at once, one real, one imaginary, should be accepted without wonder as a commonplace.” (3)

Author who hopes he will be regarded alongside Koestler someday.

Inspiration for Teachers: 8 Universal Laws

Writen by Jeff Herring

The Law of the Future

I realize this is a bumper sticker cliche, but it doesn’t make it any less true. You really do “touch the future” with your students.

The Law of the One

Most people can remember the one or two teachers who believed in and took a special interest in them. For many of us, these special teachers made a tremendous difference in our lives. Might you be “the one” this year?

The Law of Learning

Whatever subject you teach, if you can foster a love of learning in your students, you have done more than perform your job well.

The Law of the Three P’s

Politics: In teaching, as in any other profession, there are politics. You don’t have to be an integral part of all of it. You do need to be aware of it, however.

Paperwork: Many teachers complain about the overwhelming amount of paperwork that keeps coming at them each year. I’m certainly no fan of paper work. The most important thing is to not let the first two Ps interfere with the third P.

Passion: When you bring a sense of passion to what you do inthe classroom, it will spread to your students. Not to all of them, of course. But enough of them will pick up on and catch your passion to make a huge difference.

The Law of the Role

Too many times, I hear someone say, “I’m just a teacher.” Stop right there. You are so much more. Instead of concentrating on your job title, focus instead on your role. You are so much more. You are a: Counselor - Confidant -Influencer - Future-shaper - Preparer of minds - Future changer - and much more.

The Law of a Difference

All the roles listed above, and many others, contribute to you making a difference in the lives of your students. It was said best by a few lines on a framed picture my lovely wife Lauren gave me:

“A hundred years from now it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove … but the world may be different because I was important in the life of a child.”

The Law of the Visit

If you are one of the folks who have been truly blessed by “the visit,” you’ll be able to relate to how powerful this is.

It may come in the form of a phone call, e-mail, letter or actual visit. It’s when one of your former students comes back and lets you know what a difference you made in his or her life. It may not even be something you remember saying, but the former student does because it made a difference. It can make your day or even your year, and reminds you why you are doing what you are doing.

The Law of the Starfish

Later this year, if you find yourself overwhelmed, stressed out and just tired of it all, you may wonder if you’re making any difference at all. Save this story for those times.

A man was walking down the beach one day and came across hundreds of tiny starfish that had washed up on shore. He immediately began to pick up as many as he could and throw them back in the ocean. He repeated this over and over, until another man walked up and asked him what he was doing.

“Isn’t it obvious,” said the man. “All these starfish will die if we don’t get them back in the water. Please help me.”

The second man replied, “What’s the use, you’ll never be able to get them all back in the water. So what difference does it make?”

The man bent down, picked up just one starfish, and tossing it back into the water said,

“It makes a difference to this one.”

Visit SecretsofGreatRelationships.com for tips and tools for creating and growing a great relationship. You can also subscribe to our f*r*e*e 10 day e-program on how to enrich your relationship today, from relationship coach and expert Jeff Herring.

Manipulative Words of Equal Meaning

Writen by Norton Nowlin

Many words mean the same thing and may be used synonymously in context to make ideas and concepts clear in the process of standard writing. Some synonyms, however, may be used euphemistically to manipulate a reaction of the reader or listener to the context of a statement. Take the word “lie” for instance. The dictionary definition of the word lie is, “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive.” In the year 2003, the definitional use of the word “lie” became ambiguous when applied to the statements made by President George W. Bush and Vice-President Richard Cheney regarding the imminent danger posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to the United States.

We now know that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction in the months leading up to the Iraqi invasion, nor did the country pose a grave danger to American security. According to the Downing Street Memo, which has been systematically downplayed by the media and ignored by Congress, there is undeniable proof of collusion and conspiracy by the Blair and Bush administrations, months prior to the Iraqi invasion, to deliberately deceive the American and British people into supporting the pending war. Nevertheless, the use of the word “lie” by the media, to apply to the conduct of the Bush Administration, was somehow not deemed proper.

They instead used the word “prevaricate,” which means “to speak falsely, misleadingly, or so as to avoid the truth; deliberately misstate; equivocate; lie.” Though the two words appear to be identical in definition, prevaricate doesn’t carry the same blunt ring of accusation conveyed by using the word “lie.” But is there any real difference? If I said that Peter took the money from an old man without permission, with the intention of keeping it, I might also correctly say that Peter stole the money. Moreover, if I said that Peter took the money and then denied doing it, I could also equivalently say that Peter lied about taking the money. What if I said, instead, that Peter took the money and then prevaricated about doing it? What would be the difference between my two statements? Would the use of the word “prevaricate” change the circumstances or mitigate the act of Peter denying that he stole the money? I think not.

A double standard has always been widely used when considering the conduct of kings, presidents, and prime ministers as opposed to the ordinary people of a nation-state. And the misuse of words and colloquial expressions has commonly been the means whereby the double standard has been applied. This is because kings, emperors, and other monarchs were historically considered sources of law, so they were also rendered as sacrosanct and considered incapable by the people of committing crimes.

If, for example, a divine-right king or emperor had provided the means for his close associates to evade interrogation during an investigation into crimes against the state, would the ruler have been culpable of obstruction of justice? In an historical reference, perhaps not. If the ruler claimed sovereign immunity to be able to commit acts, ordinarily considered crimes, with total impunity, which many kings did, the ruler had an out. Then how about an elected president or prime minister in a contemporary system of laws where everyone in the state are equally charged to obey the law? Equal protection under the law and equal liability for violating the law sound good when legislated as general principles. But by saying that presidents, prime ministers, and ordinary citizens are equal before the law, strict application and enforcement of guiding constitutional principles are ultimately necessary as proof that all people are judged equally in a nation of laws.

So has strict application and enforcement of criminal law been the case in the United States with regard to our Presidents, Vice-Presidents, U.S. Representatives, and U.S. Senators, and all other civil officers in accordance with Article 1, Section 3 and Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution? Of the “infamous” sixteen federal civil officers impeached since 1789, only one senator, William Blount, was formally investigated in 1799 for high crimes, but was not convicted because, of all things, the Senate declared that it did not have the jurisdiction to try one of their own, which was constitutionally incorrect. The two Presidents on the list, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were impeached but acquitted of their charges. Of the nine federal judges impeached, six of them were tried, convicted, and removed from office. Three were acquitted. The one Supreme Court justice impeached, Samuel Chase, was acquitted in 1805. No Vice-President has ever been impeached.

Does the foregoing disciplinary record say anything about double standards occurring in the federal criminal justice system? Is it possible that if each aforementioned impeachment acquittal was closely examined in retrospect by an honest county prosecutor, in strict accordance with federal law, would political skullduggery and Machiavellian compromise be found as expedient bases for the adjudged innocence? One prominent senator majority leader once publicly said that trying Presidents and senators for petty criminal offenses is a waste of the Congress’ precious time.

The sanitized Congressional Record didn’t reflect any opposition to this senator’s statement on the Senate floor, so I suppose there were ninety-nine other senators who agreed with him. Perhaps if Richard Nixon had been tried by the Senate for the list of crimes with which he was charged, he would have also been acquitted. Perhaps not. But we do know that Gerald Ford pardoned him before he could be indicted by the Justice Department after resigning from the Presidency.

How about the Presidents, besides Nixon, who got away with committing high crimes while in office definitely like James K. Polk, Warren G. Harding, Franklin Roosevelt, and, possibly, Ronald Reagon and George H. Bush. What did Polk do? He lied to Congress about who started the fight with Mexico in 1848 in order to get a declaration of war against Mexico for the sake of Manifest Destiny. It was Gen. Zachary Taylor who actually started the Mexican War by having one of his soldiers shoot and kill (murder?) a Mexican cavalryman from across the Rio Grande River. Over two-thousand people, both Mexican and American, were killed in that unjust war.

Those Americans who have studied history know about the Teapot Dome Scandal and the acclaimed ignorance of President Warren G. Harding as to the money laundering that occurred between Harding’s Secretary of the Interior, Albert B. Fall, and an oil operator, Henry F. Sinclair. Several people got rich in the illegal exchange of money, but Harding claimed he didn’t know anything about what was going on. Fall was the only federal officer tried and convicted for the high crime of conspiracy and grand theft. Perhaps, in addition to being considered a failure as a President, Harding should have been impeached and tried by the Senate for presiding over the Teapot Dome Scandal and not doing anything about it.

According to meticulous historical research conducted by Dr. Charles Tansill, Distinguished Professor of Diplomatic History at Georgetown University who wrote “Back Door to War: Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941,” John Toland, distinguished writer, historian, and author of “Infamy,” George Morgenstern, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Chicago who served as a captain in the U.S. Marine Corps and wrote the book, “Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War,” published in 1947, Charles A. Beard, noted historian and author of “President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941: A Study in appearances and Realities,” and Frederick R. Sanborn, historical writer and author of “Design for War: A Study of Secret Politics, 1937-1941,” Franklin D. Roosevelt covertly planned for the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and knew, at least 48 hours in advance, that the Japanese Fleet were going to devastate the vulnerable U.S. Naval Fleet. Because of the many secret documents and records kept from the purview of the Blue Ribbon Pearl Harbor Commission by U.S. Army Intelligence operatives, the commission was not able to ferret out the facts and the disturbing truth about Pearl Harbor and the American entry in World War II.

It wasn’t until the late 1940’s that documents were released by Harry Truman which showed that FDR conducted secret negotiations with Winston Churchill, from 1939 to late 1940, assuring the British prime minister that America would enter the war against Hitler. In knowing that Franklin Delano Roosevelt had knowledge sufficient to warn the Pearl Harbor Naval Command well in advance of the impending Japanese attack, but, instead, ordered his War Department staff to allow the surprise attack to occur, there is no alternative but to call Roosevelt a war criminal who deceived the Congress and the American people. If Congress had known about Roosevelt’s secret negotiations with Churchill and his covert underhanded foreign policy with Japan, there is no doubt that the President would have been impeached for high crimes. Being a cripple and the purported American economic savior do not, in any way, mitigate FDR’s cold calculated strategy to manipulate a neutral nation into world war.

How may less incriminating words be used to euphemize the unnecessary deaths of over 3,000 American GI’s at Pearl Harbor? Isn’t that what the Nazi leaders attempted to do in their defense at the Nuremberg Trials to justify the murder of millions of innocent people? The Iran-Contra Scandal involving Ronald Reagon and George H. Bush was also a play on words. Oliver North deliberately lied to Congress and became a popular folk hero from doing it. In response to allegations, Reagon shrugged his shoulders and simply said, “I don’t remember what happened,” and he was exonerated of all blame. Vice-President George H. Bush, former director of the CIA, testified before Congress that he was out of the loop while the sale of arms for money to support an illegal CIA war operation in El Salvador and Honduras was going on. And no one questioned his veracity. Strangely, he was believed and the investigation into Iran-Contra was halted.

You don’t have to be a conspiracy nut to read between the lines and discover that contemporary American history reveals some startling facts about corrupt political behavior. Illegal agreements between federal officers to commit acts which are against the law and of the land and the interests of the people are called criminal conspiracies. In a nation of laws, criminal government conspiracies cannot be endorsed, tolerated, or ignored. Similarly, words of equal meaning cannot be used to lessen the severity of criminal acts committed by supposedly honorable public servants. When this happens, the darkest of evil may triumph under the guise of pseudonyms and aliases.

Norton R. Nowlin holds M.A. and B.A. degrees from the University of Texas at Tyler, an advanced paralegal certification, with honors, from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington, and one year of law school from Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California. In addition to the foregoing academic attainments, Mr. Nowlin has earned 70 post-graduate semester hours in economics, history, sociology, and business from Pepperdine and National Universities. In 1985, Mr. Nowlin successfully completed the 72nd San Diego County Sheriff’s Academy, at Southwestern College in Chula Vista, California, as a San Diego County Deputy Sheriff. Mr. Nowlin is presently a paralegal specialist for the Board of Veteran’s Appeals in the Office of Veteran’s Affairs, in Washington, D.C., and the father of the three grown children. He is married to the physicist, mathematician, and professional tutor, Diane C. Nowlin. Mr. Nowlin resides with his wife and two very intelligent cats in Gaithersburg, Maryland.