Is Marx one of the 10 Greatest Philosophers of all time?

My Answer......To put Marx into the Top Ten we would have to knock off ten of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Locke, Rousseau, Smith, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, JS Mill, Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Freud in the Western canon let alone Confucius, Lao Tzu, Buddha in other philosophies (to name a few). Considering that his philosophy is largely a derivative of Hegel’s suffused with the writings of Proudhon, Saint-Simon, Fourier I would argue that top ten is way too generous. Top twenty perhaps but only with a push. Granted his thinking has had a real world impact but more often then not this has come at the detriment of humanity when transformed into practice. In addition his economic ideas around Labour have been shown wanting while his poor grasp of market dynamics were obliterated by Hayek et al. I suspect that his status as a great thinker is more a consequence of his popularity in the revolutionary context as well as the affection he seems to ignite from those who have inherited the Gramscian mantle and all too often dominate schools of philosophies on many a university campus.

Quora Question - What exactly is Donald Trump’s IQ? I am betting that in reality, he does not rank as the genius he claims to be. Who can clarify?

My Answer.
 You cannot make extremely reliable claims with respect to IQ scores going on school grades or report card marks as some have suggested. Nor can they be gauged by anecdotal references to people who may have met Trump. Many students who are intelligent slack at school and work to the minimum necessary level. Also until you have administered a well normed IQ test such as the WAIS or the Stanford Binet all claims with respect to IQ are subject to a high margin of error. In addition IQ tests (including those that are highly g loaded) only provide a snapshot of the intelligence puzzle. There may be over 100 factors (by some accounts) that go into defining what Intelligence really is. 

What we do know is that Trump has been a relatively successful businessman (although he has had his fair share of failures), He also pulled off one of the most stunning election wins in US History, bested two political dynasties and took out a host of well established GOP candidates in the Primaries. Yes he speaks with a simplistic tone but clearly this resonates with his base and has paid dividends. He also more than held his own in the debates against opponents, many of whom had Ivy League pedigrees. This has to count for something in the smarts category putting aside Academic elitism. 

However if speculating is the name of the game (and again I will add the necessary grain of salt) then here goes… As far as his education is concerned he did graduate Wharton with a Bachelor of Science in Economics. While one could argue that his family pulled strings to get him in there the fact of the matter is that he gained his degree from a school that is regularly ranked in the Top 5% of all Business Programs in the US. The average IQ of University students in the US is about 111–113. Wharton is a school that is well above average so it would not surprise me if the average graduate of the school has an IQ somewhere between 125–135 (using a SD of 15…same as the WAIS). Even if Trump was weaker than the average student there (which again is speculation) it is unlikely that his IQ is below 120 let alone 115. Remember he completed his degree. Therefore looking at his accomplishments and factoring in these conditions I would argue that his IQ is at the 125 mark (well in the top 10% range for the general population) - not a genius but more than comfortable for making his mark.. Try the suggestions below or type a new query above.

Quora Question - What do teachers tell students when they (the kids) ask about their religious beliefs?

My Answer.

As a rule of thumb I do not answer questions about my personal life when students ask me. It really is none of their business and it also interferes with the important teacher-student boundary that I believe is necessary for effective pedagogy. However I do sometimes wax into the philosophical when teaching Physics or Astronomy/Earth Science. This largely occurs when discussing the nature of materialism, the origin of life, determinism and causality etc. In this case I make my position clear as a Deist (of Jewish origin). I will outline the atheistic and theistic position but I think its only fair that they should know where my bias comes from if the topic ventures into the arena of the subjective. Having said that, this is an extremely small part of the curricula that I cover and my conscious attempt as a Science teacher is to focus on the objective (99%+ of the courses) where such beliefs play a negligible role.

Cliches in Legal based TV Series

1. The divorce lawyer is having an affair with his/her client.
2. The junior lawyer is horribly humiliated in their first case which was clearly over their head to begin with (although I hear this is a truism of the profession).
3. Criminal lawyers will largely have innocent clients.
4. There will be at least one bizarre precedent setting case per episode.
5. Trials always start terribly for the lawyer until the Private Investigator unveils some crucial evidence.
6. The evidence is always released five minutes before the shows end.
7. Clients always hide vital information from the lawyer which the lawyer will find out on their own.
8. There is never any discussion of fees or retainers.
9. Guilty clients will cause an ethical dilemma that will split the firm opinion-wise for the entire episode.
10. All lawyers are eloquent.
11. There is always a legal assistant studying at night to be a lawyer.
12. Every Will is controversial.
13. Cases are decided immediately after crucial evidence is provided. The origin of this evidence is never really discussed.
14. Everybody drawing up a will is a wealthy eccentric.
15. The Judge will call the lawyers into chambers at least once an episode.
16. Justice is not blind to money. The truth always wins.
17. Legal assistants are either young and pretty or extreme battle axes. There are no 'regular person' type legal assistants.
18. A judge is found to be corrupt at least once every three episodes.
19. A lawyer will resort to court room theatrics at least once every two episodes.
20. A lawyer will find the exact legal precedent they are looking for to win the case with minimal research.
21. Court Cases never drag on…Yeah right!!

Non-Existent Circles

A circle is defined as the locus of all points equidistant from a center. As any school kid can tell you a circle has both a circumference and a diameter and the relationship between the two is:

C = Pi*d
where C = Circumference
d = diameter (or 2 *radius)

Now Pi is an irrational number that does not terminate. So that we cannot say with 100% surety what its value is.
Therefore if we know exactly what the circles diameter is there will always be some uncertainty with respect to its circumference and if we know its circumference then its diameter is in doubt.
So we cannot know both its diameter and its circumference. Since a circle has to have both a definable circumference and diameter. We run into a mathematical paradox.

A number of resolutions to this paradox are:
a. Circles don't exist. Neither do other conics dependent on Pi for dimensions.
b. Pi is in reality a rational number.
c. Higher Dimensions account for the uncertainty in circle geometry (ie. 2-D Euclidean Geometry is a simplification even in the flattest worlds) - A String Theory type of Approach.
d. Pi is not a constant but fluctuates somehow creating an illusion of existence.

Another point to consider is whether circle uncertainty is the mechanism behind Heisenberg Indeterminacy? Does it also effect observation and if so how? Its worth thinking about.

External Group Units

Identification with group units forms a vital part in the psychological development of humans (we are social animals after all). In adolescence an external group unit is often sought as an adjunct to the immediate family. In many cases the external group unit supersedes the family as the paramount body of influence for the adolescent, and hence it functions critically in directing the world view of the young adult. Whether the cause of such a drive is genetic (it may be hard-wired into our brains) or environment based is debatable. However the ‘need to fit into a larger-order stratum, a fact that I have seen in many of the students that I have taught is powerful.

It can be argued that a human being passes through several stages of interaction with others, increasing the contact field size at each stage. As an infant the relationship is directed solely toward the parents (usually the mother as a source of nourishment), as a child siblings and close friends become more crucial, while as an adolescent the interaction expands to include members of the respective peer group. The rise of the peer group often brings with it a questioning of some of the parental values. This can lead to a rejection of home values in what as often described as teenage rebellion. Craving a higher meaning and not finding this in peer groups (which are too unstructured and lack authority), the adolescent expands their horizon further exploring the various external group units that exist. These can be sports or club focused but often such organizations lack a spiritual worldview that can replace the solidity lost by foregoing the family unit. The adolescent is then open to be drawn to idealism and its many incarnates, a transition that can be either positive (joining a human betterment group such as Save the Children) or negative (generally one of the us-against-them type philosophies).

The phenomenon of the home-grown terrorist growing up with all the benefits of western society (often from an affluent home) willing to kill and die for a belief is a direct consequence of an extreme but unfortunately not rare identification with an idealism. It is no coincidence that many of these suicide bombers are adolescents as their identification with the external group unit as a replacement for the ‘dead family’ is developing. The Nazis knew this hence their focus on the Youth Movement, as did the Mullahs in Iran who had no shortage of adolescent martyrs for the war against Iraq in the 1980s. In autocratic countries it is not uncommon for children to betray their parents for the ‘cause’, a fact which both Hitler and Stalin (with his Young Patriots) knew only too well.

Adolescents need to feel part of an external group unit that’s far greater than themselves and if no positive outlets exist that can speak to them philosophically and spiritually, its conceivable that they can turn to the dark side with a zeal that can flip Maslow’s hierarchy of needs on its head (survival loses its significance). The drive is that strong and should be further studied.

Western History 96: Who was Sulamein the Magnificent?

The 16^th century was renowned for its powerful monarchs – Henry VIII and Elizabeth I in England, Francis I in France and the Hapsburg's Charles V and Philip II.  The Ottoman Turk Suleiman the Magnificent can be added to the list.

In addition to being a lover of a poetry, a philosopher and a lawgiver, Sulamein was arguably the greatest of all the Ottoman rulers. He ruled between the years 1520 and 1566 doubling the size of the Ottoman Empire. It was during Sulamein’s reign that Mecca and Medina fell into the Ottoman orbit, as did territory in Yemen and Persia (he fought the Safavids). In Europe he seized both Belgrade  (1521) and Hungary (he defeated the Hungarians at Mohacs in 1526) and laid siege to Vienna (1529).

Hapsburg defence would halt his progress at Vienna. He was defeated by Charles V in Tunis in 1535. In the Mediterranean Sulamein defeated the forces of Venice and Spain in 1543 (Nice) and 1558 (Menorca). He was allied with the French forces of Francis I in 1536 in opposition to the Hapsburg enemy (described by the historian Carl Bruckhardt – as the sacrilegious union of the lily and the crescent).

Sulamein could not repeat his success at Malta (1565) that he had had in Rhodes (1522) and his siege of the island failed to drive out the Knights of Malta (St. John) whose fate was spared by the action of a Spanish relief force.

After Sulamein’s death the Ottoman Empire would decline. The defeat at Lepanto  (1571) at the hands of the Holy League (an alliance of Venice, Hapsburg Spain, Papal States, Genoa, Tuscany and several smaller allies) would ensure that this vital body of water would remain in Christian hands.

Trump/Putin Meeting

The following is my take on both the Indictments and the Trump-Putin meeting. It is guaranteed to make nobody happy but I could be wrong (inside joke for fellow Deists).

1. The evidence that Russia meddled in the 2016 election is pretty strong. A House Committee of Republicans already showed this some time in 2017. The Report remains redacted. Trump has declined to reclassify it as he wants Mueller investigation to run its course.

2. The meddling (hacking/phishing) occurred under the Obama watch and should have been dealt with more harshly at the time. The Mueller 12 indictments supported by Rosenstein are a reflection of this. They are not essentially new.

3. This is extremely problematic but hardly surprising. Russian cyber attacks on the US go back for some time now. I expect that the reverse is true as well.

4. Both the DNC and RNC were hacked. RNC hacks on new domains were foiled. Several Old RNC Domains (including one by Colin Powell who advised Hillary Clinton on her e-mail server policy) was breached but no significant information was obtained.Hacks did reveal systemic problems within Democratic Party that are disturbing.

5. The DNC hack reflects poor internet security (downright stupidity in some cases) as well as Russian malevolence.

6. It is incumbent on Trump though as the sitting POTUS to take Putin to task on this. Apparently a great deal of the two hour meeting between the two did focus on the topic. It didn't go anywhere as Putin continued to deny such action. Extraditions are unlikely to happen. Not much of note though was achieved in the Helsinki meeting in other key areas – Gas Pipeline, Syria, Iran, Ukraine etc. However there does seem to be working momentum for the future.

7. Despite the problems associated with the various US intelligence agencies (and there are many..only the most close minded would deny this) Trump should not be going after these organizations in public (certainly not with tweets). Nor should he be extolling Russia’s ‘virtues’ at the expense of the US. Conservatives didn’t like this with Obama’s Cairo speech they should be equally critical of Trump.

8. Putin is no friend of the West and no ally to the US. Trump is correct in sitting down with Putin but he needs to show as much of the iron fist as the velvet glove in both word and deed.

9. Cancelling Helsinki was a possibility but I would rather see ongoing dialogue then tit-for-tat snubbing. One can be tough and still talk.

10. The US can approach Russia from a position of strength. The cards are very much in America’s favour. I realize that Trump likes to butter up the other side (not a fan of this myself...however its part of his deal making style) but I don’t believe it is necessary here. Putin can see bullshit right away.

11. The fact that Russia meddled in the 2016 election does not mean that they colluded with Trump in their meddling. There is no evidence in this regard. There is also no evidence that Russian meddling changed the 2016 results. Democrats need to grow up and own this defeat.

12. The notion that Trump is a puppet of Putin is ridiculous. Indeed if you look at Trump’s action (not his words) a great deal of what he has carried out goes against Russian political orthodoxy – this includes his break from the Iran Deal, his movement of the US embassy to Jerusalem, his improved relations with the Saudis, his action in Syria (fight against Russian mercenaries, bombing run), his arming of Ukrainian separatists. None of these are out of the Russian playbook. The fact that he wants NATO (a front against Russia) to spend MORE not less also rubbishes this idea that he is acting in Russia’s best interests.

13. Repeating myself...It is important to realize that there is a big disconnect between what Trump says and what he does (actions). His actions on a foreign policy level reflect an agenda that does serve the US well. ISIS for one has been defeated and Islamism, which looked on the up and up during the Obama years, seems to be stalling (although I am far from writing off this toxicity). Avoiding all out war with Russia and ensuring a workable relationship with the largest nuclear power other than the US seems reasonable to me. Hysteria must not reign.
.
14. The Treason charge is ridiculous. It also poisons the debate further. By such standards Nancy Pelosi should be up for treason for speaking to Assad in Syria (during the Bush years) or indeed Obama should be indicted for offering the Russians (off mike) flexibility with respect to the missile shield. You can't do this. Discussion is part of the political process. Let us stop the overreaction. It achieves nothing.

Unholy Alliances

World history is filled with the story of unholy alliances that have been formed based on convenience and a common goal (or at times hatred).

Here are a few:

1. Soviets/Nazis: The two agreed to divide Poland between each other prior to WWII. The Pact created was supposed to be that of Non-Aggression - a situation that vaporized rapidly when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June of 1941 (Operation Barbarossa).

2. Communists/Islamists in Iran: Both joined forces to overthrow the Shah. Once this was achieved in 1979 - the Islamists said 'thank you very much' and systematically began persecuting the Communists - We hate to say I told you so?

3. Ukrainian Nationalists/Nazis: Another WWII alliance of convenience that would see the latter shaft the former - after all the Ukrainian Nationalists were still Slavic Undermenschen in the eyes of the Nazis - regardless of their hatred for the Soviets.

4. RadicalLeftists/Islamists - A very disturbing contemporary phenomenon where both forces are bought together under a common loathing of the US and Western Style Liberalism (not to mention the Jews of course).

5. Radical Leftists/Paleoconservatives - The former detest Liberalism and American Interventionist Politics and the latter American Interventionist Politics and Liberalism (oops is that the same thing). For more on this see the cross-referencing of columnists of each type between the Paleo Antiwar blog and the Leftist Counterpunch. Any American good deed is evil for these guys and like #4 they both hate the Joooos.

6. Syria/Iran: Both have a vested interested in supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon. Each are both served by a divided and weakened Iraq. Choosing between Syria and Iran is liking picking sides these days between typhoid and cholera. No thank you.

7. Holocaust Deniers/Jihadists
Read: Holocaust Deniers

Flashback to 2007

I wrote this in 2007...

14 Political Figures who have disappointed me.

1. Jimmy Carter - Has turned into an apologist for the Hate Israel chattering Class

2. Al Gore - Has gone astray with the Green Global Warming hysteria - although I still hope that he runs for the Dems and beats out Hilary for the Presidential Nomination
3. Dubya - Not tough enough on illegal immigration and affirmative action. Handling of Iraq situation has been poor.
4. Colin Powell - Way too soft on terror. Calls to close Gitmo were irresponsible.
5. Michael Ignatieff - Took a strong line against terror when he was an acdemic but backpeddled on this when running for Liberal Leadership in Canada.
6. Ehud Olmert - Once took a hardline against Palestinian violence but after releasing 250 terrorists and before then mismanaging the fight against Hezbollah Olmert has declined remarkably in my books.
7. John McCain - Like Bush is way too easy on illegal immigration.
8. Mitt Romney - Changes positions like the wind.
9. Gordon Brown - Chooses correctly to fight terror while refusing to address its Islamist Source.
10. Barack Obama - At one time he seemed like a fresh voice in Congress now looks like the front runner for the Dem's increasingly growing Radical Left.
11. Tony Blair - An unfair critic of Israel. Refused to take the same hardline approach opposing Palestinian terrorists that he did against their Al Quaeda collegaues.
12. Ron Paul - While I agree with some of his libertarian ideas his support of an American policy of isolationism is irresponsible.
13. John Edwards - At one time appeared rational but after his 'War on Terror bumper sticker comment' appears as though he has hurdled the moon.
14. David Cameron - Seems more Neville Chaimberlain than Winston Churchill in opposition. Lets hope that this changes after he comes to power.

Quiz - Know The Brain

From the following clues name the structure

1.Sits at the bottom of the brain. Has cauliflower shape. Thought to control the timing of movement.
2.Outer gray matter. Involved in higher brain functions.
3.Located inside the temporal lobe. Memory and navigation are its key functions.
4.The stalk of the brain. Connects forebrain to cerebral hemispheres. Controls respiration and cardiac rhythms.
5.Brain structures that control emotion. It is one of the oldest parts of the brain.
6.Part of Central nervous system it regulates blood pressure, hunger, thirst and heart rate.
7.Starts with an A. This structure that regulates aggression and fear is part of the brain’s medial temporal lobe.
8.The lower part of the Brain Stem. Controls autonomic functions.
9.Joins two hemispheres of brain.
10.Lobe in cerebrum that is located above occipital lobe and behind frontal lobe. Thought to integrate sensory information from different senses.
11.Type of brain matter associated with information processing.
12.A structure that emerges from a neuron. It is not the dendrite.


Answers

1.Cerebellum.
2.Cerebral cortex.
3.Hippocampus.
4.Brain Stem.
5.Limbic System.
6.Hypothalamus.
7.Amygdala.
8.Medulla oblongata.
9.Corpus callosum.
10.Parietal lobe.
11.Grey matter. White matter is associated with information transmission.
12.Axon – conducts electrical impulses from neuron.

On Fascism

It can and has been successfully argued that Fascism is actually a far left phenomenon. A type of Socialism with a nationalistic as opposed to an international focus. Right Wing causes tend to be more individualistic. Left Wing ideals are based more on group think.

Fascism has a group think mentality that is ultimately driven by Social Engineering (very much a left wing force). It opposes existing establishments and is therefore non-conservative. It also seeks to remold society in its own image upward by destroying the existing infrastructure through radical transformation. This is a characteristic of Stalinism, Maoism, Marxist-Leninism, International Socialism and of course National Socialism or Fascism.

Its no co-incidence that such a Fascist politician as Benito Mussolini was an ex-socialist.The transition was easy to make. Both philosophies for one believe in strong government involvement and nationalization of industry (controlled economy) to meet an agenda. Modern day Fascists such as Lyndon LaRouche are following in Mussolini's footsteps and have made the 'small leap from Communist to Fascism. Chavez in Venezuela has made the switch the other way.

A Far Right Philosophy is more likely to be that of Strict Libertarianism that seeks to reduce government involvement to a minimum - opposing all types of social engineering and nationalization.Its one of the giant misconceptions that Fascism is Rightist as it fails to agree to this classification when analyzed strictly.

Left wing historians prefer to brand Fascist ideologies such as Nazism and Islamic Fundamentalism (to superficially distance themselves from either one) but when analyzed critically against the excesses of the 'f'ormal' left in China (Cultural Revolution), USSR (Purges and Forced Famines), Cambodia (Killing Fields) and North Korean (complete economic overhaul and famine) the similarities are uncanny

Multiple Standards and other Paradoxes

Just a few that I have noted..........

1. Animal Rights activists who think nothing of physically attacking their fellow human beings.
2. Anti-Stereotype activists resorting to the Dead White Male Classification.
3. Anti-Racist Activists who insist on rectifying the situation with reverse discrimination policies based on race.
4. Uber-Liberals who chastise conservative black leaders for not thinking like 'Blacks'.
5. Diversity Champions who won't even listen to opinions from the traditional right.
6. Anti-American radicals like Noam Chomsky who think nothing of holding positions at MIT (one of the hubs of the military industrial complex)
7. American Labour Champions such as Nancy Pelosi who use migrant Mexican workers on their family vineyards.
8. Scientists who decry Intelligent Design as Unfalsifiable (and therefore unscientific) while insisting that science has ruled out the presence of God (an equally unfalsifiable pursuit).
9. Feminists who rally that Augusta Golf Club is misogynist institution while at the same time downplaying the persecution of women under the Taliban.
10. Anti-Marijuana champions who have no problem binge drinking.
11. Multi-millionaires like Bono who wax on consistently as to how middle class families should spend their money.
12. AIDS activists who don't practice safe sex.
13. Michael Moore suing an ex-employee who did a documentary about him.
14. Politicians who support a war but then arrange cushy non-military positions for themselves.
15. De Gaulle adopting a decidedly Anti-American and Anti-British policy after the two countries liberated France from the Nazis.
16. The Arab Nations who criticize Israel while at the same time persecuting their own populations.
17. The US championing democracy while at the same time ignoring human rights violations in Saudi Arabia.
18. Human Rights Champions who support Castro on ideological grounds ignoring his history of suppression of dissent.
19. Teachers who insist on creativity and then give multiple choice only tests.
20. Anti-Gay advocates who engage in gay sex.
21. Universities that claim to encourage free thought while at the same time implementing speech codes.
22. Marriage Counsellors who have been divorced several times.
23. Anti-Child labour advocates who buy clothes made in South East Asia.
24. American sports fans who criticize soccer for being too slow but then watch baseball.
25. Germany repenting for its Holocaust past but at the same time helping Iraq with their chemical weapons program.

Could Hitler have won WWII?

He might not necessarily have won the war but Hitler could have improved his chances if he had.....

1. Not broken his non-Aggression Pact with Russia and ordered Operation Barbarossa,
2. Not persecuted the Jews and other undesirables thereby stripping Germany of valuable brainpower and wasting much resources that could have been used for the war effort,
3. Not declared war so quickly on the US after Pearl Harbour,
4. Not switched tactics several times during Operation Barbarossa,
5. Not underestimated the importance of RADAR to the Brits,
6. Not used blind racism to underestimate the strength of African-American fighting units,
7. Put more faith on his Jet plane units instead of focusing on the V1 and V2 rockers towards war end,
8. Listened more carefully to his generals (especially Rommel and Guaderain),
9. Not slept through the early period of D-Day (Overlord) having given strict instructions not to be disturbed,
10. Not spread his forces so thin that they were often prey to resistance and partisan groups,
11. Not pushed the UK to brinkmanship by his stupidity in Poland,
12. Not deemed Nuclear Physics a Jewish Science thereby throwing the advantage to the Allies in this field,
13. Not wasted time attacking North Africa,
14. Not overestimated Nazi support in the US,
15. Not underestimated the intelligence of the Slavs (in particular the Russians and the Serbs),
16. Not turned on the Ukrainians who at one time appeared to be natural allies,
17. Used Irish Nationalism as a force to undermine the Brits,
18. Not placed so much faith in his 'unbreakable' war code,
19. Not given the RAF breathing time to rebuild by changing his strategy in the Battle of Britain to bomb civilian sites,
20. Not allowed Germany to become a bureaucratic nightmare by allowing the instruments of totalitarianism from going out of hand,
21. Taken the opportunity to finish the British Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk instead of hesitating to do so.

Western History 95: What were the key features of the Reign of Elizabeth I of England?

Together with her father Henry VIII, Elizabeth I was probably the most influential monarch in English history. Elizabeth was born in Greenwich Palace in 1533. She was the daughter of Henry’s second wife Ann Boelyn (who was executed at the Tower of London).  During the reign of Elizabeth’s half-sister Mary (Bloody Mary), Elizabeth was herself imprisoned in the Tower of London. After a year she was freed and then took the throne herself in 1558.

Mary’s reign had witnessed a bloody conflict between Catholic and Protestant elements in England. In 1559 the Elizabethan Religious Settlement re-established Independence of the Church of England from Rome, placed the Monarch as the head of the church and set up a common prayer book. She would be excommunicated from the Catholic Church in 1570.

The reign of Elizabeth would last until her death in 1603 and was personified by the emergence of England as a military, strategic, cultural and economic power coining the phrase – the Elizabethan Era.

Both playwrights William Shakespeare and Christopher Marlowe would emerge during this time period with Richard Burbage opening the first theatre in England in 1574.

In 1567 Elizabeth faced the challenge from Mary Queen of Scots who was subsequently imprisoned. Mary would be executed at Fotheringay Castle in 1587 after being implicated in the Babbington Plot to assassinate Elizabeth I.

The Northern Rebellion against Elizabeth failed in 1569 and did the Ridolfi (1571) and Babbington (1586) Plots.  

It was during Elizabeth’s reign that Francis Drake would set sail around the world  as English pirates continued to wreak havoc on Spanish shipping going back and forth from the Americas.

England’s survival as a power was put to the test by the Spanish monarch Philip II but his illustrious Armada was defeated in 1588 at a battle that gave birth to the formidable power of the Royal Navy. A Second Armada was beaten in 1597.

Elizabeth passed away in 1603 leaving England in a far stronger position than that which she inherited. She would be succeeded by James I (James VI of Scotland) the son of her arch rival Mary Queen of Scots.

Western History 94: What was the War of the Three Henrys?

Religious wars had engulfed France for much of the 16^th century. Mob violence – such as the St. Bartholomew’s day massacre (1572) - was often severe and figures such as Catherine de Medici (the mother of the Valois monarch Charles IX) often played a role in fanning such tensions.

The War of the Three Henry’s was the last conflict in the French Religious Wars. It was a three way war fought between 1587 and 1589 involving the royalist faction of Henry III (the last monarch of the Valois dynasty), King Henry of Navarre (leader of the Protestant French Huguenots who was backed by Elizabeth I of England) and Henry of Lorraine (leader of the Catholic League who was supported by Philip II of Spain). The war was initiated by Philip II with the intent of preventing France from interfering with Spain’s intended Armada attack on England.

The Royalist initially sides with the Catholic League in an uneasy alliance against Henry of Navarre. However this alliance would collapse with the Catholics eventually fighting the Royalists. Both Guise and Henry III would die during the war with the latter being assassinated by a fanatical Catholic monk. Henry of Navarre by virtue of having outlived the other two would emerge victorious. He had key victories at Ivry and Arques and would eventually claim the throne as Henry IV. In order to gain the support of an overwhelmingly Catholic France he would convert to Catholicism prior to ascending the throne.

Henry IV is considered the founder of the Bourbon dynasty (that ruled France until the French revolution). His greatest accomplishment was unifying France after the Religious Wars and promulgating the Edict of Nantes (1598), which guaranteed religious freedom in France for Protestants. He was assassinated in 1610 by a Catholic fanatic as well.

                                                 

Henry IV

The Anti-Trump Grandstander

(Originally written February 2017)

We all have one in our pantheon of friends and family. Many of us have several. You know the type - Homo trumpus erraticus better known as the Anti-Trump Grandstander (ATG).

While appearing normal on the outside and indeed reasonable on most fronts the ATG is not always easy to spot. They carry very little of the outer baggage of SJWs, rarely wear their politics on their sleeves and more often than not disappear into the political ether appearing rather clear thinking across most axes.

That is until the subject of one Donald J. Trump comes to the fore. Then as if ignited by a trigger catalyst the ATG springs to life. Gone is the previous demeanour of controlled rationalism, enter stage left is a symphony of vents, ridicules and desperation pleas that draws uncritically from the memosphere of the Anti-Trump world.

Trump we are told is the harbinger of a Brave New World, a reactionary of the worst type, a fanatic but most importantly all that there is wrong with western civilization wrapped into one. There is no debate. He is both evil and stupid and all arguments to the contrary are ridiculous. So goes the reasoning.

Although I have much reservations about Trump (I wanted Rubio to win the nomination for all of those reasons) I take great pains to hear such an individual out, supplying the necessary counter balances as there is some pedagogic value to be obtained in understanding how emotion drives political thought. The ATG is a textbook case as they have chosen to filter all information through a confirmation strainer and therefore see no grey in a polarized world where they are clearly on the side of good. The fact that Trump supporters have a completely different interpretation is therefore of little value. Not when parameters are so clearly defined.

With Trump there is no middle ground as ATGs see it, so even giving ‘The Donald’ a fair chance makes no sense. The best that can be done is to grin and bear these next four years with the hope that Congress and indeed the Supreme Court rein in the excesses of his Administration. In short it is dystopia for now. One ATG even told me that he was thinking of moving to Australia, so dismal is the outlook.

Now Trump is certainly an unknown quantity when juxtaposed against the current political environment. On words alone he appears to have bucked the consensus with respect to the global focus and when one distills out the root cause of such opposition to him I suspect that his walk away from the Hegelian notion of historical direction is at the epicentre of such grievance.

Many people have invested strongly, not only financially but more importantly  emotionally, on the emergence of a global worldview. Free Trade is a belief shared by both the centre left and right across the West and the vast majority of those in the supposed ‘know’ see it as a necessary step in the march of history (an illusion if ever there was one). While opinions differ with respect to technicalities, Internationalism is viewed as a forward looking policy that will benefit humanity in the long run. To oppose it smacks of a regression to a bygone era of nationalism that ripped open the planet with global war. Trade brings peace and who in their right mind doesn’t want peace?

Trump of course on the surface enters as the antithesis of such a worldview – his buy America, anti-illegal immigration stance and apparent backtrack from Internationalism fly in the face of the vested paradigm. While much of his words have been distorted and need to be analyzed in context, at first glance they tap into the visceral and pour cold water on the emotional commitment that has underpinned a near uniformity of thought. Consequently they are attacked with a rigour of disdain as if he is cutting at the essence of what defines the individual.

This need not be the case. Trumpism is not anti-Internationalist. That ship has long since sailed on that front. What he will do though is to redefine and readjust America’s role within the broader global spectrum. The nation needs it. High U6 unemployment for much of the Obama tenure and an extremely slow recovery are indicative of problems within the larger economy that could have implications for the future. Whether his plans will prove productive are of course debatable but something has to be done.

I have mentioned this to many an ATG but most are unreceptive. While some acknowledge the argument especially when framed in the context of blue collar jobs I sense that there is another factor which makes the anxiety around Trump even louder and its much more than the coarseness of his personality and his way with words. It comes down to the issue of control.

With Trump there is a sense that control of the environmental factors that impact one’s lives will be lost especially if a status quo is disrupted. ATGs give lip service to change but in their heart are resistant to it. Despite this apparent irony there is a conservatism that runs through progressive and liberal thinking and like some of the conservatism on the right it wants to safeguard its gains. With progressives/liberals this drive may even be stronger as environmental factors are so much more powerful within this thought base

Western History 93: How did Henry VIII catalyze the English Reformation?

The Welshman Henry VII proved himself to be a very able monarch. His reign was welcomed for its stability after the War of the Roses. He balanced the budget and reduced lavish spending. Tax collection was improved and the pound avoirduposis became the standard unit of weight. On the political front he secured an alliance with the Holy Roman Emperor (through the marriage of his son Arthur to Catherine of Aragon) and treaties with France and Scotland.

Henry was succeeded by his son Henry VIII in 1509 who had become the heir to the throne following the death of his older brother Arthur from tuberculosis.  It was Henry VIII’s reign that would represent a transition period in English history synonymous with the Reformation of the time.

Henry would change the English constitution, advance the divine Right of Kings and eventually instill the monarch’s power over the Church of England. He had many ministers (Thomas Wolsley, Thomas More, Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer) and clashed  with each of them. He was also known for his six wives (Catherine of Aragon, Ann Boelyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard and Catherine Parr). Wives one and four he would divorce, two and five were executed, three died of complications giving birth to his successor Edward VI and number six outlived him.

Henry however did play a role in strengthening the Royal Navy (a future force in geo-politics) but unlike his father clashed with both France and Scotland. His forces defeated the French at Spurs (1513) and overseen by Catherine inflicted a blow against the Scots at Flodden (1513).

The break with the Papacy was a consequence of his intention to have his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled. She had produced a daughter, Mary, but no male heir.  The Pope Clement VII refused (he was under pressure from Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, who was Catherines’s nephew). What would follow was a series of events that would lead to Henry’s break from the Catholic Church and the Establishment of the Church of England. These included the Submission of the Clergy (the church could no longer formulate policy without consent of the king), the Statute in Restraint of Appeals (forbade all appeals to Rome and the Pope) and the Act of Supremacy of 1534 (made the monarch the head of the Church of England). The Treason Act and a series of Acts of Monastic Dissolution would follow.

Henry (a one-time defender of the Catholic faith) had placed broken firmly with Rome. His daughter Mary, who was one of his successors, who attempt to roll back some of these changes but his other daughter Elizabeth would cement the Anglican Revolution building on her father’s radical change to steer England with conviction as a Protestant Power.

                                                                           Henry VIII

Western History 92: What was the War of the Roses? How did it lead to the emergence of Tudor Power?

The War of the Roses was a series of civil war fought in medieval England between the House of Lancaster and the House of York. The War had its origin in the politics of the late 14^th century but is more defined by the period 1455-1485. It set the stage for the rise of the Tudors and the emergence of England as a regional and later global power.

Key Dates in the lead up to and the war itself

1377 – Death of Edward III. He is succeeded to the throne by Richard II the son of Edward the Black Prince the Eldest son of Edward III who had dies a year earlier. Edward’s four surviving sons contest succession. Richard is only ten years old. One of Edward’s sons, John of Gaunt, represents the House of Lancaster. Another Edmund represents the House of York.

1377-1399 – The Reign of Richard II was a very  turbulent time in England. He faced a Peasant Revolt and challenges by his uncles. He changed his heir several times. In 1399 he was overthrown.

1399 - Henry IV (Bolingbroke) the son of John of Gaunt retuned to England to take the throne in the name of the House of Lancaster. He would rule until 1413 but his reign faced several rebellions as well. These include the Welsh uprising by Owain Glyndŵr, the Percy Rebellion (leading to the defeat of Henry “Hotspur” Percy at the Battle of Shrewsbury and the failed rebellion of the Archbishop of York, Richard Le Scope.

1413 – Henry V, son of Henry IV took over. The new Henry was famous for his victory over the French at Agincourt. However he dies prematurely in 1422 and was succeeded by his infant son Henry VI.

1422 – 1460 (official coronation 1429)  and Henry’s reign saw a return to turbulence. He suffered from mental breakdowns and was often seen as shy and timid. His spouse Margaret of Anjou (whom he married in 1445) would play a pivotal role in the politics of his later reign. It was also during Henry’s reign that the House of York would assert themselves beginning the formal period of the War of the Roses.

By 1453 the French had the upper hand in the Hundred Years War with English possessions in France being reduced to Calais. Henry’s forces would be defeated by that of Edward IV  - the son of his cousin Richard of York. Edward ruled between 1460 and 1470 while Henry went first into exile and then would be imprisoned on the Tower of London Henry would return to rule briefly between 1470 and 1471 but Yorkist victories at Barnet and Tewkesbury restored Yorkist power, This is often taken as the end of Phase One of the War.

1471- 1485 – Edward IV and later his brother Richard III would rule between this period with the latter taking the throne under dubious conditions at the expense of his nephews.

1485 – The soon to be Henry VII who has merged the banners of Lancaster and York (he married Elizabeth of York) defeated Richard III’s forces at the Battle of Bosworth Field and establishes the House of Tudor that would rule England until the early 17^th century. Henry’s victory brought to an end Phase Two of the War of the Roses. Tudor Supremacy in England would be a reality until the early 17^th century.

                                                                   Richard III

                                                                       Henry VII

Western History 91: Why was Charles V such an important monarch?

Charles V was the Holy Roman Emperor between 1519-1556 and arguably the most powerful figure of this era. He presided over a great deal of territory in Europe and the colonial world (west, central, southern Europe, the Americas and Asia) during a time when the political milieu was affected by the emerging Reformation crises. Charles was born in 1500 and inherited four million square kilometers of territory that included the Holy Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire (where he ruled as Charles I) and the Duchy of Burgundy. His grandparents on his maternal side were Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castille (whose marriage united Spain). On his paternal side his grandparents were Maximilian I (previous Holy Roman Emperor) and Mary of Burgundy. This lineage gave him claims as an heir to both the Austrian Habsburg and French Valois dynasties.

His reign was dominated by war. The Habsburg-Valois conflict saw his forces pitted against the French, he held off Turkish advances in Hungary and Modern Day Romania and clashed with various German Princes in the Religious struggles of the 16^th century.

It was Charles who took the lead as the champion of Catholic Orthodoxy and it was Charles himself who called Martin Luther in 1521 to appear before the Diet of Worms. He would later outlaw Martin Luther.

Charles also championed the Council of Trent (that drove the Counter Reformation) and took a strong stance against the Lutheran Schmalkaldic League. His forces were victorious against those of the Protestants at the Battle of Mühlberg but were beaten back in the Netherlands.

Charles would abdicate in 1554 handing over control of Sicily and Naples to his son Philip who would become King of Spain in 1556. His brother Ferdinand I would take over as King of Austria and Holy Roman Emperor. Charles would spend the remainder of his life as a Monk at the Monastery of Yuste in Spain.

                                                                  Charles V

Western History 90: What happened during the Religious Wars of the 16th century?

The year 1517 is normally associated with the Protestant Reformation. From the date forward until the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 Europe would be split largely along religious lines that reflected the Three Christian Traditions – Catholicism, Lutheranism and Calvinism. Added complexities that emerged from the power politics of the day, such as Catholic France standing in opposition to the Catholic Holy Roman Emperor, would further complicate a brutal and bloody period in European history.

What follows is a timeline of the key events leading up to but not including the Thirty Years war (1618-1648).

1522 – Knights Revolt in Germany against Roman Catholic Church

1524-1525 – German Peasant’s War. Ends in failure.

1535 – Anabaptist riots in Amsterdam

1546-1547 – First Schmalkadic War –Imperial forces defeat Schmalkadic Lutheran League

1552-1555- Second Schmalkadic War(or Prince’s revolt) – Protestant victory confirmed in Treaty of Augsburg. Rulers under the Holy Roman Empire banner could choose between Catholicism and Lutheranism within their state. Calvinism was still excluded.

1562-1598 – French Wars of Religion – Uneasy Truce. Allows for the Emergence of Henry IV of Bourbon (discussed later).

1568-1648 – Eighty Years War - Peace of Münster grants the Protestant Dutch independence from Spain. Southern Netherlands (largely Belgium today) still associated with Spain.

Western History 89: What events bracketed the Rise and Fall of the Holy Roman Empire?

The superstructure Holy Roman Empire (HRE) played an important role in the politics and religious affairs of Central and Southern Europe between 800 AD until its dissolution by Napoleon I in 1806. The territory associated with the HRE included Modern Day Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Low Countries, Czech Republic, Liechtenstein, Northern Italy, Eastern France (Burgundy) and Western Poland. It reached its greatest extent between 1155 and 1268 under the Hohenstaufen Dynasty and was essentially governed by an elective monarch and a Legislative Diet. Latin was the Principal administration language in earlier years but this would change to reflect regional differences. The population of the HRE stood at about 16 million in and around 1500. This number would increase to 24 million by 1800 (a drop from 26 million+ in 1786).

Four kingdoms are traditionally associated with the HRE. These are – Germany (from 962), Italy (962-1648), Bohemia (from 1002) and Burgundy (1032 to 1378).

Key Dates in the History of the Holy Roman Empire

800 – Charlemagne is crowned Emperor by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day.

887 – Partition of the Empire into Five Kingdoms – West Francia (France), East Francia (Germany), Burgundy, Italy and Lorraine. West Francia will be permanently detached.

919- Rise of German Ottonian Dynasty

962 – German domination of HRE is established when Otto I becomes Holy Roman Emperor.

1027-1125 – Salian dynasty dominates Empire

1138 – Feudal Hierarchy is entrenched with Hohenstaufen Line

1347 – Rise of the Luxembourg Line of Kings. More direct control of Lands.

1356 – Golden Bull confirms Elected Monarchy

1438 – Beginning of Habsburg Control of the Imperial title. Power center is in Austria.

1480 – Limited reform sets up the Reichstag (until 1570)

1519-1556 – Empire’s politics are influenced during this period by Charles V arguably the most powerful sovereign of his age.

1618-1648 – Thirty Years War. Ends with Treaty of Westphalia.

1681-1682 – Empire in struggle against Turks and French.

1740 – Austria/Prussian rivalry weakens Empire

1792 – Further conflict arises from French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars

1806 – Emperor Francis II dissolves Empire denying Napoleon to take the title of Emperor.