Soccer Tees, Pluto, and Harris Tottle

There is a fascinating book available titled “”Non Campus Mentis” which is a collection of excerpts and quotes from the various tests and papers of students.  It is always fascinating to look at history through the eyes of the students which is what the author has done and when you read what he has gleaned you don’t know whether to laugh or cry.  The teacher’s present the materials but then something seems to be lost in the translation from mouth to ear because the students don’t seem to hear precisely what is being said or hear it and then don’t have a clue as to what it means, how to spell it, or even how it applies to anything.  So here is a summary of World History which I have compiled based on the responses taken from this treasure trove of school tests and papers[1].  The spellings have been left intact and I leave it to your discerning eye to distinguish between what is written by me and by the students and for this reason I have elected to not use distinguishing quotation marks.

Let us begin with ancient Egypt which has always been a challenge because counter to all logic on a map the Nile runs up (North) rather than down which has always caused consternation for the observer who views Egypt on a map, because as we all know,  there was Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt.   Lower Egypt is actually farther up than Upper Egypt which was – of course – lower down than the upper part.  This is why we learn geography as a factor in history.  Egypt was certainly an interesting and powerful civilization.  The rulers of Egypt were entitled as Faroes with one of the most famous being King Toot.  Of course one of the most famous things in Egypt is the pyramids.  The pyramids were large square triangles built in the desert.  O’Cyrus was a god who lived in a piramid and would give you the afterlife if your sole was on straight.  The Egyptian upper class was able to live posthumously through the arts and facts buried with them. 

And this brings us to that other great civilization – the Sumerian also known as the Mesopotamian which existed in a valley near the Eucaliptus river where flooding was erotic.  Babylon was similar to Egypt because of their differences they had apart from each other.  Egypt for example only had Egyptians but Babylon had Summarians, Acadians, and Canadians, to just name a few.  The Babylonians honored their gods by building pyramids in the shape of zeplins.  Mesopotamia was dominated at various times by the Medes, Persians, and Assyrians.  The Assyrian program of exterminating various ethnic groups failed to promote cultural diversity.  And so closes our tour through the truly ancient cultures and brings us to the Mediterranean and the Classical Age.

Athens, Sparta, and Pluto were Greek city states.  Some were Oglearchies but Athens was a democracy resulting from the reforms of Colon and Percales.  Sparta demanded loyalty, military service, and obscurity from its citizens.  King Xerox of Persia invaded Greace but fell off short at the Battle of Thermosalami.  Religion was polyphonic and featured such gods as Herod, Mars, and Juice.  Thucydides was a noted historian who collected facts objectively and saw himself as responsible only to Clio, the Greek Mouse of History.  Eventually the Greeks were conquered by Phillip of Mastodon who was later killed in a family sprawl.  He was succeeded by Alexander the Great who conquered Persia, Egypt, and Japan.  Sadly he died with no hairs.

The Greeks were important and laid the foundation for western civilization.  They were important at culture and science.  The scientific method came into use when the Greeks learned never to take things for granite when solving a problem.  The Atomists discovered E=MC^2 and other mathematical things.  U Clid proved that there is more than one side to every plane and Pythagasaurus fathered the triangle, while Archimedes made the first steamboat and power drill.  But perhaps the greatest gifts of the Greeks were in the form of philosophy.  The pre-Socratics lived long before Plato and were not decisively influenced by his work.  Perhaps the greatest philosopher was Socrates who was accused of Sophomorism and sentenced to die of hemroyds.  His student Plato invented reality and was teacher to Harris Tottle, author of the Republicans.  Other philosophies included the Epicureans for them lust was a must.  Others were the Vegetarians and the Synthetics who said “if you can’t play with it, why bother”. 

The Greeks were eventually replaced by the great Roman Empire which was founded sometime by Uncle Remus and Wolf.  The Roman upperclassmen demanded to be known as Patricia.  Senators wore purple tubas as a sign of respect.  Around the 120’s B.C the Gretzky brothers failed to stop these and other injustices.  But the Republic carried on and struggled with the other great Mediterranean power – Carthage. Hannabelle crossed the Alps with a herd of eliphants and thus invaded Africa.  After they defeated Carthage the Romans brutaly salted the people and razored the city.  Scipio was called “Africanus” because he served in Spain.  The Republic prospered but eventually it came to be dominated by Julius Caesar who was famous for inspiring his men by saying “I came I saw I went”.  Caesar was assassinated on the Yikes of March and is reported to have said “Me Too Brutus”. 

Following the assassination of Caesar Rome was subjected to many turnoilic events, oncluding Anthony’s elusive affair with Cleopatra.  The shrewd Octavian grabbed hold of the Empire and he kept the people happy by giving them breaded circuses.  Augustus (aka Octagenarian) founded the Roman Catholic Empire and punished those involved in sibilancy and adultery.  The symbol of his authority was the Cross.  He put it everywhere.  Augustus did have to leave the Empire due to his death. 

There are many theories about the fall of the Roman Empire and many were totally not possible and some of them were.  This included more than enough religion, too much slavery, not enough water, and smoking from lead pipes.  Then the Empire was swept with a tidal wave of Goths, Hungs, Zulu’s and others who impacted Rome.  Athena the Hun rampaged the Balkans as far as France, where he plumaged and tortured people of the villages he captured. Thus ended the Roman Empire and Western Civilization entered the Dark Ages where it was mostly dark.

Certainly history is a lot more interesting when you have it explained through the eyes of the students.  Soccer Tees, Pluto, and Harris Tottle – I salute you.

---

[1] Henriksson, Non Campus Mentis, Workman Publishing, New York

Democracy And The Modern World

The modern world really began with the end of the Victorian Age and WW I.  This signaled the end to the power of the nobility and the rise of the common man.  The aristocrats survived but they are nothing more than quaint anachronisms and are irrelevant today.  The end of WW I brought great social change across the Western world but it also signaled the rise of the Bolsheviks, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Nazi’s, and even what became Communist China.  These all represent populist movements intended to right the wrongs of the past socially, politically, and economically.  The history of the twentieth century is littered with the enormous cost in human lives brought about by the failures of these movements.  But the echoes of these movements continue into the twenty first century and the social and economic problems which these movements meant to solve remain and are growing with the growth in population.

The globalization of markets made possible by technology and the speed of communications has spread global capitalism or at least the concept of individual worth  which has highlighted the unequal distribution of benefits and wealth that characterize capitalism.  In effect there are more rich people it the world today but there is also a larger and growing underclass of the working poor.  This isn’t as obvious in the developed western countries but it is very visible in the large cities in South America, Asia, and Africa.  This population of underpaid and frequently unemployed is a destabilizing influence and forms a ready source for radical terrorists, which is readily visible throughout the Middle East and Africa.  Throughout the twentieth century the poor were largely isolated geographically and technologically but that has changed in the twenty first century.

It is estimated that by 2010 thirty percent of the world’s population will have communication access through the internet and cell phones and that number will continue to grow.  This spread of technology will not and historically has not led to stability, but instead has been a destabilizing influence most recently demonstrated by the Islamic based violence around the world.  History shows that the invention of the printing press led to the religious reformation but also to the wars, controversies, and religious schisms that followed.  The current spread of information access is repeating this historical pattern.  We are witnessing the rise in violence triggered not by oppression but by the freedom of speech via communications not easily controlled by governments but readily available to the general population.

Policy makers – especially in the industrialized countries, are focused on bringing democracy to many of these countries currently under the thrall of dictators and religious zealots.  This policy of “democratization” is based on the assumption that this is a solution, but historically political freedom has unleashed the violence we are witnessing in Egypt and across the Middle East and North Africa.  These large populations of uneducated underpaid, and unemployed are unstable and as can be seen from the violence in these areas, easily manipulated by ethnic, religious, and power driven leaders.  The historic reality is that dictatorships can actually serve the people better than representative governments.  Anwar Sadat and King Hussein of Jordon are examples how a dictator who truly acts in the interest of the people can be more effective than an unstable and unworkable representative government.  Sadat and Hussein could not have made peace with Israel without the dictatorial power they possessed.  The current policy of democratization of countries is unlikely to yield stable governments but more likely to contribute to rising violence.

Some believe that if Egypt and Syria made peace with Israel the violence in the Middle East would cease or at the very least decline to a manageable level.  This is a false hope that rests on the premise that Israel itself is the casus belli but if Israel were to vanish the problems and carnage would remain.  The root cause of the problems in the Middle East is not Israel but the power struggle between Islamic factions and Israel is merely an excuse.  None of the Islamic states cares about Palestine or the Palestinians because they have never been willing to accept them as immigrants.  Instead they use the conflict with Israel for their own political ends, which are religious, ethnic, and struggles for power.  Therefore, democratization of Islamic states is unlikely to stabilize them and the reality of this can already be seen in Egypt.  The Mubarak dictatorship was overthrown and a democratic government elected which immediately failed because the newly elected leaders moved immediately to install a religious dictatorship.  It is unlikely that a democracy is the solution in the Middle East and in Egypt a military backed dictatorship may be the best solution.

 

Egypt -- Libya -- Islam

The events in Egypt and Libya taking place today may determine the future of the Middle East for years to come. More importantly these events may affect Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood, Palestine, and most certainly the radical Islamists. Will Islam and Sharia Law become the dominant force in the Middle East or will the more moderate Muslims prevail and turn toward modernism and the world at large? IRAN Perhaps Iran holds the key to any peace in the Middle East. It is a government dominated by a group of radical Shi’ite Clerics posing as a legitimate government. They are funding most of the violence endemic in the Arab World. They are working on the development of an atomic bomb and have already developed the means to deliver that bomb to Israel as well as Eastern Europe. The question is “will Iran use their nuclear capability to attack Israel?” I think this is unlikely because it would lead to the downfall of the current government and end the clerical dominance. Would Iran quietly provide the nuclear weapons to their Hezbollah alter ego? This also is unlikely because the relationship between Iran and Hezbollah is no secret. Would they offer nuclear weapons to Palestine in order to assist the Palestinians in their pathetic war against Israel? This might be a possibility if the radical Islamists truly want to destroy Israel. PALESTINE The first question is “Is Palestine a real nation or is it an imaginary country like Afghanistan? The Arab world pays a lot of lip service to the Palestinian “cause” but after more than 60 years of rhetoric no Arab country seems to provide the Palestinians any substantive support nor has the erstwhile government ever shown any control over the factions ruling and dividing them. True – someone is paying for the weapons used by the Palestinians but either the Palestinians don’t have enough men to use all of the weapons or there simply isn’t enough armament to effectively attack Israel. Either way it appears that the Palestinian problem is nothing more than a way for the Arab world to rally around a cause without getting too involved. As the events in Egypt, Libya, and Syria unfold the question becomes “will the emerging Arab governments opt for a peaceful co-existence with Israel and the world or will they intensify their attacks on Israel and the West? The answer to that question might lie with Saudi Arabia. SAUDI ARABIA This may be the most schizophrenic country in the world. It is a monarchy on the one hand but a theocracy on the other. There is the royal family who are westernized (ignore their traditional dress) and realize their fate may lie with the Western Powers because of their economic dependence. At the same time the Royal family is not totally confident in the support of the people and are afraid of Iran and it’s religious influence over the Saudi people. The Saudi’s are the guardians of the most sacred places in Islam, practice Sharia Law, and are expected to be the model of an Islamic state. So publicly the Saudi’s are opposed to Israel while it has been rumored for years that privately they don’t care about Israel, which raises the question of how will they react to the events in Egypt and Libya. EGYPT The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in the 1920’s as a semi-secret organization with the objective of establishing Islam as the governing authority in the Arab world. They have been opposed and outlawed ever since – at least until the recent elections in Egypt, where they received 51% of the vote. The Egyptian Military does not support the Muslim Brotherhood and has worked with the Egyptian Judicial arm to weaken the constitution and the power of the President. The military dissolved the Egyptian parliament but the new President Morsi in an act of defiance convened it and then adjourned it before the Military could act. This was clearly intended to challenge the Military. On the positive side Morsi has promised to include Christians and women in his government and has promised to govern for all Egyptians. As his first foreign visit he is visiting Saudi Arabia. This is an important visit because how the Saudi Arabian government receives him is important. They could influence him to establish a modus Vivendi with Israel, rein in the Palestinians (who rely on arms coming in from Egypt), lean toward the West and not Iran, or any combination of these. But Egypt and Saudi Arabia cannot ignore the events in Libya either and what happens there could influence what happens in Egypt. LIBYA The Libyans have over thrown Gaddafi whose government was at least nominally Islamic. The question now is will Libya become an Islamic government dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood or will it lean toward the West and modernism? The recent elections in Libya have been indeterminate with the more secular National Forces Alliance headed my Mahmoud Jibril claiming victory while the Islamist Justice and Construction Party claims that it will ultimately prevail. This claim is based on the rather complicated political structure which prevents either party from gaining an absolute majority of the Parliament. Mohammed Sawan believes the independent votes in the Parliament will go to the Muslim Brotherhood giving them control of the government. At least some of the Independent parties fear the Muslim Brotherhood and see it as allied with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Other independents are opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood for fear that they would close off Libya from the West and install a conservative Islamic government. The Independent candidate stated that he had rebuffed offers from Justice and Construction Party (Muslim Brotherhood) because "Libyans are ready to experience democracy and only educated liberals with a world view can bring it." SYRIA Syria has yet to come into play due to the de facto civil war raging. The existing government is heavily supported by Iran, shelters Hezbollah, and tacitly opposes Israel. Precisely who the forces opposing the Syrian government are is uncertain. The Iraqi’s have warned that Al Qaeda troops are pouring into Syria from Iraq. If this is true it doesn’t bode well for Syria’s future. If the opposition prevails they could follow Libya and turn westward or they could establish an Islamic state with an anti-west position.

The Arab Spring and Islam

The entire Middle East is in turmoil as the people rise up in rebellion against the incumbent rulers. Unfortunately the western world sees this as a spontaneous effort by the people to achieve freedom and representative government. Actually this view rests on an appalling lack of historical knowledge as well as any insight into what Islam is all about. From the beginning Islam has swept all of the secular powers in the Middle East out of power and made great inroads into Europe and Asia but at no time did the Islamic rulers ever establish any semblance of a representative government or allow any of the freedoms so cherished by the West. Instead there has been just one repressive government after another and the Arab Spring is unlikely to produce anything close to a democratic government with all of the freedoms the west associates with democracy. In Iraq where American power overthrew a brutal dictator the new government is struggling to establish a representative government but is being challenged by Imam Al Sadr who wants an Islamic style government. In the meantime Christians are being persecuted along with any Jews that remain, so regardless of who emerges with the power it is unlikely to look anything like any western style democracy.

The people in the west, particularly those who subscribe to the pseudo-religion of multiculturalism and political correctness, watch these rebellions through western eyes and with virtually no understanding of what is actually happening. In the Arab world loyalties are very different than in the west and Libya is an excellent example to observe loyalties in the Arab world. In Islam loyalty is to the family – not just the nuclear family but all of the aunts, uncles, cousins, and nephews. The second loyalty is to the village and the third level of loyalty is to the tribe. Loyalty to a country if it exists at all is pretty thin and in spite of all of the flag waving in Libya this is essentially a tribal war and not a civil war in terms of the people versus the government. This is a group of western tribes who have held power for forty years being challenged by the eastern tribes who think it is time they held the power. Once the current regime in Libya is gone the new one is unlikely to establish anything resembling a truly democratic government. It will be an Islamic government with the only unknown being how extreme will it be.

Somehow the politically correct crowd in the west excuses the excesses of Islam on the basis that these are extremists and that at its core, Islam is a religion of peace. The naïveté of this position is astonishing given the 1500 years of evidence. The reality is the Muslim Moderates the politically correct cite as examples of Islam as peaceful simply don’t understand Islam. The true Muslims are those that are conducting the war against Christians, Jews, and Infidels. They are not “extremists who have perverted the teachings of the Koran – no -- in fact they are following Islam and the Koran to the letter. In reality it is the moderates are not adhering to the teachings of the Koran and it is unlikely they would be tolerated by Mohammed if he were alive today. Of course it is possible that as the Arab Spring progresses these moderate Muslims might come to power but it is highly unlikely given the history of Islam.

The mobs in the streets of Syria, Libya, and other Arab states are all male although in Egypt you might see a few women but even there the majority is male. Does anyone expect for the new regimes to suddenly give women equal rights? Will women be free to dress as they choose and go where they please? Will there be freedom of religion? Will Christian missionaries be permitted to proselytize in these countries under the new regimes? Will the new governments allow freedom of the press or will the government continue to control what the people hear? Will these new governments be friendly to the west or will they continue the jihad? Will Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and the multiple jihadist groups stop attacking the west? The reality is that nothing has changed and it is unlikely anything will change. Islam has been at war with Christians, Jews, and the infidels since the 7th Century and their attacks will not cease until they have conquered the world, which is what they believe is the command of Allah.

The western powers can help overthrow these repressive regimes and hope things will change but it is very unlikely. It is more probable that the former repressive regimes will be replaced by new repressive Islamic regimes perhaps not as extreme as the Taliban but certainly not resembling anything like a true democratic government with all of the freedoms associated with a free and open society.