[charlotte corday] murderess, feminist or heroine

Wiki says that under the Second Empire, Marat was seen as a revolutionary monster and Corday as a heroine of France, as represented in the wall-map. I admit to much preferring the 1860 painting by Paul Jacques Aimé Baudry.

To the upside-down and wrong-way-round question: 'Would Charlotte Corday have killed Jean-Paul Marat if the political motivation had been removed from the equation?' the answer must surely be: 'No, she would not have.'

Therefore, her action might be construed to be patriotic - in support of her country, killing a maniac who was urging everyone - and in particular, the Jacobins - on to bloodier and bloodier mayhem, from the safety of his printing press, playing on the populist reputatation he'd already built up.

Corday was obviously a thinking woman. Of the Girondin persuasion, she was pro-revolution, in the sense of the relief of the suffering of the poor and especially that of the oppression of women - and the coming Reign of Terror was to be quite misogynist in places - so much so that she'd brooded on all these things and on the rantings of this man Marat.

Thinking through her mind's eye, she'd just lived through the September Massacres, she'd have been well aware, from history, of the Massacre of the Huguenots and above all, she would have feared all out civil war. It was a quite political, dare we call it 'assassination', one which, unfortunately, added to the woes rather than nipped them in the bud.

Her claim, at her trial, was that: 'I killed one man to save 100,000," possibly a reference to Maximilien Robespierre's words before the execution of King Louis XVI. Of course, it cut no ice and she was guillotined by the Jacobin push who were turning on anyone not of their persuasion, beginning with the Girondins.

Truth is, if a man or group of men are absolutely determined to grab power for themselves - and I don't trust ANY revolutionary not to be like this - then nothing is going to stand in his/their way, nothing. It's not unlike the EU monster and its determination to ride rough-shod over the No-votes and protests and have us under its jackboot.

A sidelight to the whole matter was that the agents-provocateurs were certainly out in force and the Masonic element was well represented whenever the situation took a turn for the worse, especially at the time of the dechristianization, culminating in the placing of the prostitute on the altar of Notre-Dame.

This has always been the aim of Them, only in the revolution, it was more openly naked than usual.
.

[weekend poll] mid-poll report

Confessional style


It was a risk running this poll, not on account of the ire of Muslims but on account of the reactions of readers. Quite frankly, to be suddenly confronted with ten burqa clad women [you could split hairs as to whether they are, technically, burqas in all cases] was always going to produce emotional reactions.

For a start, there was dismay from those who saw oppressed women inside that garb and to put them in a parade, accompanied by the word 'sexiest' could be construed as low-class Trump and a sick joke. I confess that that is my own reaction and I'm uneasy about this week's offerings.

The second reaction is to say it is a statement against the oppression of women in those ridiculous robes in all weathers but against that, at least some of those women have chosen to take the hijab.

The third reaction is to be offended by the burqas, that women adopting them are deliberately driving a wedge between themselves and other members of society and I'm onside with this as well. Whichever way you look at it, the burqa certainly does nothing to endear the Muslim to the non-Muslim.

The fourth reaction is to see the funny side of it.

Interesting that people have actually voted [including me]. Are we abetting oppression? The bottom line is that it produces so many reactions, the burqa and none of them could be called positive. The moment we go banning them though, what has happened to our libertarianism?

So this week's 'sexiest' format poll has left many of us non-plussed, not least about what I was thinking in running it. I just felt it should be run, that was all.

[july 4th] or was it the 2nd or maybe august 2nd

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war’s desolation,
Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the Heav’n-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our Trust"

America, a double ration of rum for every soldier and an artillery salute to you on your day.

[oceanos] cowardice and courage

Click pic to enlarge

The sinking of the Oceanos, on August 4th, 1991, was a tale of cowardice and courage.

A French built, Greek owned cruise ship, she was travelling from East London to Durban, which is against the prevailing sea. That particular stretch of water is one of the most treacherous in the world, having claimed many, many craft over the centuries.

The Oceanos, by this time, was already neglected and internally derelict but that didn't worry the company, which happily packed people on board. In heavy seas, a leak in the water scoop below, which brought in cooling water and was connected to baths and toilets throughout the ship, began taking in water in increasing amounts.

The captain and crew were seen heading for a life raft, leaving the passengers and ancillary staff to fend for themselves, not even closing lower portholes, standard procedure. Passengers were unaware until they saw water around them in their bunks and wherever they were.

Later reports state that the Captain in fact stayed and was the 7th person airlifted to shore but then he came back by helicopter to 'supervise', from the safety of the helicopter, the rescue of those below. Either way, neither he nor his crew were down below organizing the rescue, which he very much should have been doing.

Two entertainers, Julian Butler and Moss Hills, not only filmed it all on a home video recorder but also coordinated the rescue effort, getting people into lifejackets, going to the bridge and issuing a mayday , then awaiting the naval helicopters, which duly arrived and airlifted the passengers in a large operation.

Captain Avranos claimed, in the aftermath, that he was only going for help and that it didn't matter at what stage he did that. Naturally, he was found guilty of neglect and as far as I can see, was reprimanded. Reprimanded? By maritime procedure, he qualified for execution!



There is not only precedent and accepted practice at sea but also now in International Maritime Law, which not only gives the Captain near absolute power but also near absolute responsibility, on pain of penalties. This, in turn, has been reinforced in healthcare, where 'Captain of Ship' is a possible defence in cases of negligence. In one particular case, this was stated:

Of course, maritime law had a totally different development than did tort law. The fact that the captain of a ship was liable for the negligence of all members of the crew had never been (and has never since been) applied to any other area of the law of negligence except medical malpractice. It is somewhat easy to see how a court was drawn into the simile of Captain of the Ship.

The problem is that it is not easy to apply as actual law and courts in various countries see it different ways. It is most certainly de rigeur for the Captain to be last off and this was another case in point:

In 1965, a cruise liner called the Yarmouth Castle caught fire in the Caribbean and began to sink. A nearby ocean liner, the Bermuda Star, sent lifeboats to help. When the sinking ship's captain was one of the first people rescued to climb aboard the Bermuda Star deck, the Bermuda Star's captain was so incensed that he forced his colleague to return to the burning wreck until all the passengers were accounted for.

Most operators of luxury liners tell ship captains "to insure the safety of everyone else before their own," said Priscilla Hoye, a spokeswoman for Cunard Line Ltd., operator of the Queen Elizabeth 2 and other vessels. But she acknowledged that in the heat of an emergency, ship commanders are allowed flexibility.

Avranos stated, in an interview with ABC News:

"When I order abandon ship, it doesn't matter what time I leave. Abandon is for everybody. If some people like to stay, they can stay."

To me, this is outrageous. For a start, he did not issue that order before he was seen preparing for his and his closest officers' departure. Secondly, he did not remain behind to supervise the rescue. He claimed he could 'supervise the rscue better from the shore'.

Naturally we and every passenger on that ship saw him as a coward, a rat who had abandoned his own ship and broken every law imaginable but you know how it is with the law and [some] lawyers. They say, 'Not necessarily,' and attempt to bring elements of Tort Law into Maritime Law.

On the other hand, in law, precedent is a major factor and the precedent in this case is overwhelming. Also, this is not the first cowardly captain to have abandoned his responsibilities. This Philippines example is more to the point - they wanted the Captain found, dead or alive. So it should be.

I can't get information as to what eventually happened to Avranos.



The people who really should have been hauled over the coals were those who headed the shipping company. To allow that level of neglect of the ship's infrastructure, in that part of the world, is in itself criminal negligence. That a shipping company were not aware of the aquadynamics which act in relation to a ship's hull in heavy seas is too much to believe.

Many people cannot understand how a huge liner or tanker can break up and sink when a little sailing boat, like a cork, can be blown every which way but come out of it alive. In the end, it comes down to stresses and the size of the sea. A 40 foot boat, when the wave crests are 30 feet apart, is going to find itself suspended and sagging between two crests at some stage and this puts strain on the infrastructure. An 18 foot boat in that situation will ride up and down the waves - more uncomfortable but structurally safer.

On the other hand, an 18 foot boat in high seas is in real danger. There is a rule of thumb that your vessel needs to be of a length, to be safe, that the highest seas it will encounter are no more than 55% the length overall. In practice, the highest seas encountered [with some exceptions] are around 30 feet, more usually 20 feet. Therefore, in round figures, the boat needs to be at least 35 feet long and preferably 60 feet long to go to sea.

This, in fact, is what most ocean going sailcraft are.

The boat I've designed for myself is a 63 foot outrigger, 7 feet wide, built in compartments and with two junk sails of 1400 square feet. That, to me, seems the best compromise.
.

[weekend poll] sexiest muslims

1. Burqa beach babe

2. A rose by any other name

3. Hospital green

4. Siberian tigress

5. Daring revelations

6. Grey on grey

7. Total effect

8. Ninja black

9. It's all in the eyes

10. Bearded ladies

Remember, you're allowed three votes at any one time.

[statue of ishtar] open again to selected members of the public

The Statue of Liberty in New York harbour was presented in 1884 as a gift from the French Grand Orient Temple Masons to the Masons of America in celebration of the centenary of the first Masonic Republic.

It was designed by Frederic Bartholdi, a Freemason, who sculpted the statue to be his artistic interpretation of the Roman Goddess Libertas which is the early Roman version of the Babylonian chief goddess Ishtar the goddess of liberty.

Click on the plaque above to read of this Masonic gift, if you're in any doubt about its purpose.

Ishtar is the Assyrian and Babylonian counterpart to the Sumerian Inanna and to the cognate northwest Semitic goddess Astarte. Anunit, Atarsamain and Esther are alternative names. Here are some others:

'Goddess of War', 'Mother of prostitutes ', 'Mystery Babylon', 'Mother of Harlots', 'Goddess of Freedom', 'Goddess of Liberty', 'Our Dear Lady', 'The Scarlet Woman', 'The Lady of the Lake', 'The Queen of Heaven', 'The Queen of the World', 'The Queen of the Underworld', 'The Illuminatrix', 'Goddess of Love', 'The Weeping Virgin', 'The Black Virgin', 'The Celestial Virgin' and 'The Queen of the Sea'.

Bartholdi, like many French Freemasons of his time, was deeply steeped in ‘Egyptian’ rituals, and it's often been said that he conceived the original statue as an effigy of the goddess Isis, and only later converted it to a ‘Statue of Liberty’ for New York harbour when it was rejected for the opening of the Suez Canal in Egypt in 1867.

She is holding the Masonic "Torch of Enlightenment". Also referred to back in the 1700's as the
"Flaming Torch of Reason", the Torch represents the "Sun" in the sky, as does the spiked corona. The Statue of Liberty's official title, according to Freemasonary, is "Liberty Enlightening the World".

Enlightening the world,in Masonic parlance, means subjugating it and bringing it under the control of the ‘elite’, manifesting itself in the CFR, TLC, Thirteen Families and the various Clubs, e.g. Rome, Paris. Again, if you're in doubt about the Masons, begin with the writings of their favourite sons, Albert Pike and Manley Hall, then compare those with the philanthropic overtones of the organization's homepages today.

Incredulity is the average reaction, but here is Masonry, in its own words:

"Masonry is a search after Light. That search leads us directly back, as you see, to the Kabalah. In that ancient and little understood medley of absurdity and philosophy, the Initiate will find the source of doctrines; and may in time come to understand the hermetic philosophers, the Alchemist, all the Anti-Papal Thinkers of the Middle Ages and Emanuel Swedenborg." [Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma , p. 741]

Heavy stuff, eh?

Pike was the Grand Master of a Luciferian group known as the Order of the Palladium (or Sovereign Council of Wisdom), which had been founded in Paris in 1737. Palladism had been brought to Greece from Egypt by Pythagoras in the fifth century, and it was this cult that was introduced to the inner circle of the Masonic lodges. It was aligned with the Palladium of the Templars.

In 1801, Issac Long, a Jew, brought a statue of Baphomet to Charleston, South Carolina, where he helped to establish the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite. Long apparently chose Charleston because it was geographically located on the 33rd parallel of latitude (incidentally, so is Baghdad), and this council is considered to be the Mother Supreme Council of all Masonic Lodges of the World.

Pike was Long's successor, and he changed the name of the Order to the New and Reformed Palladian Rite (or Reformed Palladium). The Order contained two degrees: 1. Adelph (or Brother), and 2. Companion of Ulysses (or Companion of Penelope). Pike's right-hand man was Phileas Walder, from Switzerland, who was a former Lutheran minister, a Masonic leader, occultist, and spiritualist.

Pike also worked closely with Giusseppe Mazzini of Italy (1805-1872) who was a 33rd degree Mason, who became head of the Illuminati in 1834, and who founded the Mafia in 1860. Together with Mazzini, Lord Henry Palmerston of England (1784-1865, 33rd degree Mason), and Otto von Bismarck from Germany (1815-1898, 33rd degree Mason), Albert Pike intended to use the Palladian Rite to create an umbrella group that would tie all Masonic groups together.

One critique stated:

"Our records inform us, that the usages and customs of Masons have ever corresponded with those of the Egyptian philosophers, to which they bear a near affinity. Unwilling to expose their mysteries to vulgar eyes, they concealed their particular tenets, and principles of polity, under hieroglyphical figures; and expressed their notions of government by signs and symbols, which they communicated to their Magi alone, who were bound by oath not to reveal them." [Thomas Smith Webb, PGM, The Freemason's Monitor Cincinnati: The Pettibone Bros., 1797, p.39]

As for the foundation and purpose of America:

"Not only were many of the founders of the United States government Masons, but they received aid from a secret and august body existing in Europe which helped them to establish this country for a peculiar and particular purpose, known only to the initiated few." [Manly P. Hall, The Secret Teachings of All Ages, pp. XC and XCI]

At this point, it seems so much fantasy fiction that your natural scepticism leads you to reject the whole thing as preposterous - the very idea of the Statue of Liberty being a monument to Ishtar is ridiculous. Men at the head of society, the movers and shakers of the world, pragmatic businessmen, into this stuff?

When, however, you check and double check your sources on the matter, you're left with a situation where a small band of men [and to a lesser extent, women in the Eastern Star], have been at the head of society in the west at precisely the time that they've also been indulging in the type of thing presented above.

That is, quite frankly, chilling. Surely it doesn't exist today? And yet look at the promises which any Blue Degree mason still made until recently, on being initiated. The official masonic site presents a catechism:

Q. Why do your 'obligations' contain hideous penalties? For example, it is the penalty for an offence, in second degree in Masonry, to have your chest torn open and your heart taken out.

A. They no longer do contain such penalties. When the Masonic ritual was developing in the late 1600's and 1700's, it was quite common for legal and civil oaths to include physical penalties and Freemasonry simply followed the practice of the times.

The much publicised "traditional penalties" for failure to observe these promises were always symbolic, not literal and refer only to the pain any decent man should feel at the thought of violating his word. After long discussion, they were removed from the promises in 1986.

This surely begs the question. Why were those penalties in there in the first place? Who dreamed them up? Why did they remain until 1986, when scrutiny of the Masons was beginning in a big way and the advent of the internet was soon to follow in 1989? Why were they retained for so long?

Do you want to read the actual text of their initiation oaths [until 1989]?

Question: "What makes you a Freemason ? Answer: My obligation."

[question and answer from the Entered Apprentice/First Degree]

".. binding myself under no less penalty that of having throat cut from ear to ear, my tongue torn out by its roots, and my body buried in the rough sands of the sea, a cable length from the shore where the tide.."

[ from the oath of obligation Entered Apprentice/First Degree ]

".. binding myself under no less penalty than having my left Breast torn open, my heart plucked out, and given to the beasts of the field and fowls of the air as prey."

[from the oath of obligation, Fellowcraft/Second Degree]

".. binding myself under no less penalty that of having my body severed in twain, my bowels taken out and burned to ashes, the ashes scattered to the four winds of heaven.."

[ from the oath of obligation, Master Mason / Third Degree ]

" .. in wilful violation whereof may I incur the fearful penalty of having my eyeballs pierced to thru center with a three edged blade, my feet flayed and forced to walk the hot sands upon the sterile shores of the red sea until the flaming Sun shall strike with a livid plague, and my Allah the god of Arab, Moslem and Mohammedan, the god of our fathers, support me to the entire fulfilment of the same."

Is that sane? And yet these are the men at the head of society in Britain and America, purporting to the Christian Right that they are a Christian, charitable organization. So, from the start, one of their practices is deception and coverup.

Let's go further. A simple bit of research reveals some interesting things about the Shriners, well known in America but not so much in this country. Wiki says of them:

The Shriners are committed to community service and have been instrumental in countless public projects throughout their domain.

A philanthropic organization of well-to-do men who have a bit of fun in their spare time, right? A bit of further research reveals:

[ from the oath of obligation, Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine ] ("Shriners")

"You must conceal all the crimes of your brother Masons... and should you be summoned as a witness against a brother Mason be always sure to shield him... It may be perjury to do this, it is true, but you’re keeping your obligations." [Ronayne, "Handbook of Masonry" p. 183 ]

So, the men in government and in key positions in society are sworn to secrecy and coverups, whilst at the same time, swearing allegiance to some weirdo god from ancient times. Does public policy of the last few years now become a bit more understandable? Does the expression 'the ruling class' now find new meaning?

Let's pause one moment

Look once more at the date of the Statue of Ishtar and who it was dedicated by [look at the plaque again]. Not long afterwards, on July 14, 1889 - Albert Pike issued instructions to the 23 Supreme Councils of the world:

"To you, Sovereign Grand Instructors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees: The Masonic religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine."

This answers the question of which deity is worshipped. The sister statue is on the River Seine and is more openly spoken of in the above context. The joke is that the American people, by and large, believe the statue represents their freedom, whereas it actually represents the diametric opposite.

And the American people would be horrified if they knew who were some of the keenest exponents of the subjugation of man. One was Thomas Jefferson:

"As Weishaupt lived under the tyranny of a despot and priests, he knew that caution was necessary even in spreading information, and the principles of pure morality. This has given an air of mystery to his views, was the foundation of his banishment....If Weishaupt had written here, where no secrecy is necessary in our endeavors to render men wise and virtuous, he would not have thought of any secret machinery for that purpose."

Jefferson supported the butchering of the 'priestly class' and the bourgeoisie, calling the carnage, on his return, in 1791, 'so beautiful a revolution' and 'their excesses, if one called them such, reflected that national will.' That's the man who purportedly supported 'freedom' and the right to free enterprise.

U.S.A. Today yesterday wrote:

On Saturday, the statue, closed above its base since the terror attacks, will reopen to visitors — a relative few, in small groups, specially ticketed, carefully screened and escorted by a park ranger. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar seemed to encourage these ideas this year when he said reopening the crown "would proclaim to the world — both figuratively and literally — that the path to the light of liberty is open to all."

In officially announcing the move on May 8, Salazar called it "a new beginning, restoring confidence in the American people, in their government and in our place in the world."

In other words, they feel they’re pretty close to their goal now.

A Masonic Shriner carrying out charity work