In this write up, the Nigerian man of God who has accurately predicted the emergence of President Barack Obama, President Goodluck Jonathan and many other individuals and nations of the world has revealed the reasons why some terror groups are against education.

The renowned man of who many have described as Nostradamus of our time because of his accurate predictions said that terror groups in some countries of the world would do everything within their powers to dissuade education and establish reigns of ignorance among the populace.

He stated that education exposes people and that an educated person will not be easily manipulated to embrace terrorism like it is the case with an uneducated person.

He added that Boko Haram is becoming real threat to the nation because of its numeric strength of uneducated individuals who according to him are easily manipulated to commits acts of terror.

Apostle Perez appealed to the federal government to urgently address the problem of ‘Al majiris’ in the northern part of the country coupled with the influx of illegal immigrants into the country.

“The rule of law which is the pivotal of democracy allows for all men irrespective of gender to have equal and undeniable assess to education. And the cartel of terrorists understand this and that is why they are trying to snuff out education in any nation they operate.”

In his words: “Education informs, furnishes and equip men and women and bring forth humanity from the animal kingdom where cannibalism, insanity and tyranny rule over day and night”.

He buttressed this by mentioning the stand of Abraham Lincoln and A.V Dicey who also supported education for all men.

According to him, Voltaire and John Locked equally succeeded in promoting the rule of law against tyranny

“When you deny men and women education; you can easily control their minds. Uneducated people are vulnerable and that is why some terror groups are preaching against education”.

Patrimonial administration – management by land lords in their manors, including property management and supervision of the subjects and their autonomy.

Bees captain (in large complexes estate regent). Under it many different specialized typists and other executives (Pojezdný, hunter, porybný, shepherd, steward, gamekeeper, etc.).

Supervision of subjects was performed by the annual courts. Patrimonial administration was abolished after 1848.

stage: the feudal

FWMaitland: CostitutionalHistoryofEngland, Cambridge 1908, S.142:
The correct answer to the question, what was the feudal system is: it was the first treatise on comparative law

Voltaire, Essay on morals, kap.23: feudal system is an ancient form of government in keeping our three-quarters of the hemisphere in countries with very different state by establishing ”

patrimonium
Otto’s encyclopedia: heritage; patrimonial partikulatismus: inheritance distributed administrative patrimonium leading to the fragmentation of public authority

“Noble” particularism
T. Bisson, Nobility and family in medieval France, FHS 16, 597: The nobility was the way it barons, knights, priests, monks and peasants represented – and only in the 12th century, their ideas about what is real nobility, began to vary and transform.

Patrimonial “noble” partikularismusse in the Czech Republic develops with less delay compared to the European West in the 12th and 13 century. This was also the period in which managed to overcome autarchic (self) business cycle, which “bins” limited state apparatus.

Popular participation in elections is losing a sense, the general election has been transformed in koncilia velmožská colloquium. In addition to convene colloquia Prince irregular courtly conventions – the embryo Royal (state) board. Office (Ministerium) – a service of general interest represented by Prince – was associated with a fief – inheritance distributed administrative patrimonium led to the fragmentation of public authority.

During the 13th century, the disintegration of the princely Regimen, from which finally separates the three branches Administratie a particular administration:

• Municipal Administration

• Church Administration

• The authority management

Organizationally with the state administration system based on the Burgenland, which during the 13th century drove out a dual system of royal and aristocratic institutions (establishment of the provincial system) and a network of royal serfs and towns.

the emergence of cities
- The right to dual cities, administration and local government,
- Cities, nobility, sovereign, disputes with the nobility in the 16th Century, the curtailing of the rights of Ferdinand I.
- Further curtailment of the rights of the White Mountain, bureaucratization of local government, municipalities and regulated by municipalities

            John Locke’s ideas are built into American society today. He agreed with the Social Contract, written by Rousseau, but said people are to be given the rights to life, liberty, and property (Holt 293), this of course was changed to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” written in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence (DoI). John Locke also said when the government breaks the Social Contract to defend the people and becomes oppressive; the people have the right to rebel (notes). This is reflected in our constitution because the government is one third thrown out every two years, we vote, and decide who to elect. This is also connected into why the revolutionaries rebelled. England had begun to be oppressive, and they broke the Social Contract, so the revolutionaries felt justified in rebelling and declaring themselves free.
            Rousseau also influenced what formed America. He wrote the Social Contract, a large part of why the Americans thought they were justified in rebelling against the British (Holt 304). He wrote that people need to select their own government, based on popular sovereignty (Holt 304). This meant that people would select who to lead them and would therefore preserve their natural state, if and only if, they could select their own government (Holt 304). He is obviously a strong advocate of democracy, and his ideas were part of the reasons America became a republic.

            Voltaire wrote, in defense of freedom of speech, “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it (Holt 303).” This idea is the basis for the First Amendment to the constitution (US constitution). This idea, gave people their freedom of religion, freedom of press, and of course freedom to say whatever they would like. This amendment is what makes America what it is today, and it might not have been possible without the thinking of Voltaire. The American people were being oppressed and shut up by the British who locked up political prisoners, and shot several people at the Boston Massacre. This does not follow what Voltaire said, and is one of the reasons the rebellion started.

            John Locke, Voltaire, and Rousseau all contributed ideas to the forming of the United States of America. They also helped in making the Colonists of the time ready to fight. The ideas thought of by the philosophers made the Americans want to rebel because they showed how much better their lives could be. America would not be what it is today if it wasn’t for these philosophers. They brought the Social Contract, human rights, and freedom of speech to the American constitution.

France at that time was a mostly catholic country.  Jean Calas and his wife were both protestants. Catholicism was the state religion and although the years of harsh oppression towards  protestants that had been initiated during the reign of King Louis XIV had mostly been receded, Protestants were still at best only tolerated. One of the Calas’s sons Louis had converted to Catholicism in 1756.

On the night of 13-14 of October 1761, another of the Calas sons, Marc-Antoine was found dead. He was discovered on the ground floor of the families home. Rumours spread that Jean Calas had murdered his own son because he had wished to convert to Catholicism. The parents of the dead man were interrogated, they at first claimed that Marc- Antoine had been the victim of a murderer. They later changed the story to one that they had discovered their sons dead body, he had hung himself. At that time in France, suicide was considered such a heinous crime and many previous victims of suicide had had their bodies defiled. The two Calas parents had arranged the body to appear like he had been murdered.

On the 9th of March 1762, the Parlement or appellate court of Toulouse issued the sentence of death on the wheel to Jean Calas. The next day at the age of 64, he died while being tortured on the wheel, throughout the ordeal he continued to claim his innocence.

Voltaire, the prolific French writer and campaigner was contacted about the case after suspicions had been raised over the guilty verdict. Voltaire began a campaign to have the sentence overturned. He eventually succeeded and on the 9th of March 1765, three years to the day after he was sentenced, Jean Calas was posthumously declared innocent and not guilty of the charges brought against him.

In every Hollywood movie that involves someone getting arrested for some offense, one can see the cop handcuffing the offender, while saying, “You have the right to remain silent…” and so on. In every Bollywood and Kollywood movie I’ve seen, there is no time for the police men to talk. They catch hold of the criminal [I mean offender], push him into the police jeep [in Chennai it’s a car] and drive away to the police station. Later, in the station, they use their lathis to get any information the accused might be withholding. And then, when they had beaten the living daylights out of the poor guy, a lawyer appears and bails them out. Then they leave the station, with bruises and stuff. I’m not sure if that’s how it really happens, but I’m sure that at least parts of it have their basis on reality. Now, one doesn’t have to be a genius to notice the difference between the former and latter scenarios.

I am surprised, in fact, that this thought hadn’t struck me earlier… And I think I know why. Here, in India, it’s become a common issue. People have learnt to accept its presence, avoid it as far as possible and even jokes are being made out of the fact that there are so serious human rights violations in here. I remember lots of films where Vadivel or Vivek or some other comedy actor had highlighted an incident like this in the film, to make people laugh. And laugh we did. We still do. But like Shah Rukh Khan once said, it’s high time we stopped laughing. Things are not really so funny in the real life. Mysterious disappearances and custodial deaths are still widespread and what about the fake encounters? In movies, these fake encounters are glamorized! People [includes many I know] respect police officers who have been involved in fake encounters. Imagine my resentment when I was shown the photograph of a relative [who was a cop] who was one of the best police officers of his time… He was the first one to kill a thug in a false encounter!

It’s rather tiring to debate how much power a cop must be given, and being just a student, I probably have little to talk about that. But I’m old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong, and also what anyone’s duty is. Everyone will agree with me if I tell them that a cop’s duty is to maintain order. But few people will appreciate my view that it’s also his duty to protect the law. And killing away thugs and criminals because they have no faith in the system, in the judiciary, is what any sane person would call ‘against the law’. I don’t care if he is accused of doing a hundred murders. He’s still innocent until proven guilty and if someone can kill anyone in the name of an encounter, then what’s the guarantee that that someone won’t pick up on an old enemy or rival? The thought of an innocent person getting shot still sends a chill down my spine…

This is what Sir Edward Coke had to say:
“One threatens the innocent who spares the guilty.”

Very true, but like Thomas Jefferson says,
“It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape.”

I would like to add however, that only some police men are the false-encounter, human rights-violating type. But even a few cops like that could easily wreck disaster in some people’s lives.

READ HERE about what former Punjab Police Chief K.P.S. Gill has to say on the matter of fake encounters:

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?234619

___________________________________________

Introduction: What is Goth?

For those who are frowning at that first paragraph; here’s a potted history of Goth before we get into the meat of the article. Not to be confused with the ancient tribe, the style of architecture, the style of literature and the art movement (all of which give the subculture its name), Goth is a subculture that grew out of a particular style of music in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Growing from the ashes of punk’s first wave, Goth was a mixture of punk, New Wave, glam and experimental music favoured by young people with big hair and big makeup. Since then, the Goth scene has grown and mutated into one of the largest and most recognisable subcultures in the Western world. Cross-overs with metal, industrial, dance music, second and third wave punk and even folk music are very common, each with their own accompanying style of dress. For more about Goth’s many sub-groups, check out my article on the subject.

Myth 1: “Goth is a cult”

Busted! Goth is not a cult, any more than rap or country music are cults. Yes, Goths wear unusual clothing, listen to strange music and wear jewellery that resembles arcane symbols, but that’s just because they like them. Goth, like many youth subcultures, has no religious links whatsoever, and you’ll find Goths who follow any number of religions, from paganism to Christianity, and many Goths who are atheist or agnostic.

A Goth couple at the Whitby Goth Weekend

Myth 2: “Goths are violent”

Busted! Very few Goths have violent tendencies. Although a few might fight back if you hit them, most will avoid confrontations whenever possible. Quite a few of us drift towards the scene because we’re a bit “different”, the sort of people who get bullied in school, and we tend to get a lot of abuse just walking down the street so because we know what it’s like to be on the receiving end, we don’t want to dish it out. I’ve known a fair few within the scene who have declared themselves pacifists.

Some people think Goths are violent because they’ve heard violent people described as “gothic”; think of the Columbine shooting and the Dawson College shootings. The perpetrators of these horrific attacks were initially described as “Goths” by the media who assumed that the trenchcoat-wearing, metal-favouring oddballs must be Goths (see below). Though some, like the Columbine killers, claimed to be Goths, it’s pretty clear from their musical and aesthetic tastes they weren’t part of the scene.

Myth 2: Goth is the same as metal/emo

Busted! Yes Goths, metal-heads and emos all wear black, but then, so do corporate businessmen. I can understand that, to outsiders, there are quite a few similarities between the three subcultures, and at certain ends of the spectrum there are cross-overs but that doesn’t mean that the three scenes are the same, no matter what the “funny” adverts with the loud rock bands tell you. If you’re playing “spot the subculture”, the key differences are in fashion, temperament and music.

Metal grew out of the hippie and prog-rock movements of the 1960s  and musically is made up of heavily distorted power chords, extended guitar solos and… is generally pretty loud. Fans tend to favour long leather trenchcoats, long and somewhat unkempt hair, baggy band T-shirts and jeans. Think of bands like Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Metallica and Megadeth: macho frontmen, heavy sounds, lyrics about ancient battles and men on horseback… all that kind of thing.

Compare that with Goth’s Romantic, slightly effete image; velvets, lace, fishnet, brooding young men with long hair and sultry femme fatales hanging around in dungeons drinking fine wines… can you see the difference? Of course I’m generalising a bit here, but I’m trying to bring out the differences. Goth music in general has a very different sound to metal, it’s lighter but more melancholic, the Edgar Allen Poe to metal’s Beowulf.

Romantic and metal influences together at Castle Party in 2007. The chap on the left sports a typically metally look.

Emo, by contrast, is a much newer invention, morphing from second wave punk and “emotional” music. Thematically emo music tends to focus on, you guessed it, emotions and relationships. It’s more about day-to-day struggle with life, your parents and your girlfriend than struggle with monsters (metal) or with depression (Goth). In terms of fashion, the stereotypical emo wears skinny black jeans, tight black t-shirts and lots of brightly coloured accessories, complete with that infamous emo flick-fringe.

There are, of course, exceptions to the rule; plenty of metal fans hang out at Goth clubs, and there are areas where the whole thing gets a bit muddled. The punkier end of Goth (towards deathrock and psychobilly) can end up looking a bit emo, with it’s day glo accessories and retro hairdos, and the more industrial end of Goth can end up looking a bit metal, complete with leather trenchcoats. Then of course there’s “gothic metal”. Now, without wanting to get into an argument, “gothic metal” seems to be more popular with metal fans and people on the verges of the Goth scene than with your common-or-garden Goth, and although gothic metal bands look the part, they haven’t got an awful lot in common with the rest of the scene and few out-and-out Goth clubs play them (may local is more likely to play Iron Maiden than, say, Nightwish, Lacuna Coil or Cradle of Filth!).

Myth 3: “Goths are suicidal”

Busted! Believe it or not, wearing black is not a sign that someone is about to try and top themselves. Goths are no more likely to commit suicide, suffer from depression or generally have a mope than anyone else, it’s just some of us have a habit of letting our emotions show. Goth music, as we’ve already mentioned, is often very emotive (and, okay, often pretty melodramatic) and Goth fashion is equally so; there’s a tendency towards theatrics in many Goths that can let their emotions get a bit…overwrought.

A German “grufti” shows just how impressive you can look if you don’t smile

Myth 4 “Goths are racist”

Busted! Because the stereotypical Goth look includes deathly pale skin, some people assume that Goths must be racist. Well…they’re not. A few unsavoury individuals might be, but there’s nothing inherent in the Goth scene that excludes people from ethnic backgrounds. In fact there are plenty of Goths of colour in the scene, the clubs I tend to attend are made of between ten and thirty per-cent people of colour. There’s also sizable Goth communities in Japan, South America and mainland Asia. Goth as a whole is a fairly tolerant scene.

Goth model Lady Amaranth combines fetish and period garb for a classic pale-skinned loo

Myth 5 “Goths think they’re vampires”

Busted! Yes it sounds silly, but many still see the Goth scene as a gaggle of vampire wannabes. Okay, a lot of Goths like vampire fiction, it’s true. I know I certainly do. The decadence, the period costumes, the violence and the sensuality of the vampire genre is a bit of a Goth archetype. Many of us love anything with fangs in it. We do not, however, particularly want to be vampires and we certainly don’t think we are vampires.

It’s true that there is a “Vampyre” subculture which does occasionally cross paths with Goth (they often wear period costumes, like spooky music and have a taste for theatrics too) and, yes, vampyre culture can and often does involve drinking each other’s blood for psychological or sexual reasons. But these people don’t think they’re vampires in the horror movie sense either: they don’t honestly believe that they’re immortal members of the living dead and they are not going to run out into the street and attack someone for blood. No matter what they tell you!

Photographer Viona Ielegems combines period dress with quirky humour… and teaspoons

Myth 6: “Goths have no sense of humour”

Busted! To this I say: hang out with Goths for a day, I think you’ll find they do. Okay, I can see the reasons why people on the outside might think this: we pose for photos with gloomy pouts, we like “dark” and “depressing” music, we wear black… we don’t exactly look jolly. Beyond that, we might not react to jokes about our dress-sense in the way someone might expect. “Jokes” yelled at us in the street tend not to get a reaction, not because Goths are humourless but because we’re worried that the people shouting them don’t intend them as jokes. Yes, it might sound daft, but those spooky looking people are just as nervous of you as you are of them. Why? Well sadly the Goth scene faces a lot of intolerance, abuse and even violence (see my article on hate crimes towards alternative people for more).

But what about jokes in a more friendly environment, like work or school? Have you ever cracked a joke to your gothic colleague about their not wearing black today? Or suggested they attend the Halloween party dressed as a “normal person”? Well, so has everyone. It may seem funny and original to you, but Goths hear this sort of thing all the time so if a Goth doesn’t seem amused, that might be why.

Goths do have a sense of humour, it’s just a lot of us have a slightly off-kilter one. If you don’t believe me, well, why do think Goths love the Addams Family, the Munsters and Beetlejuice? There are actually a fair few comedy themed comic books, books and songs aimed at Goths, from the comics of Jhonen Vasquez and Roman Dirge (great name, incidentally) to the cheeky songs of Voltaire. Goths love irony and love making fun of themselves too, so don’t assume that that song you know that “makes fun of Goths” isn’t a Goth favourite.

Voltaire’s song “The Vampire Club” pokes knowing fun at the rivalry between Cybergoths and Trad Goths, or “ravers” and “vampires” as he puts it.

Myth 7: “Goths are arrogant and exclusive”

Busted! A lot of Goths are quite shy and prefer to keep themselves to themselves, which can lead to people thinking them arrogant or aloof.

Unfortunately there is a minority of very vocal people within the scene who like to kick up a fuss about certain others within the scene. If you’ve read many Goth-related blogs, tumblrs or Twitter feeds you’ve probably come across long whining rants about how such-and-such a sub-group isn’t really Goth and how the writer is the only real Goth in their area, moaning about the decline of the scene and so on and so on. I’ve got to say we all do it a little bit: the problem is that these days the Goth scene is so large and varied that it can be difficult finding others within your local scene who share the same interests as you, which is a shame because that’s what a subculture is supposed to be about, right? For the vast majority of us, this is a passing moan; many of us love the variety of the scene, it makes things interesting and keeps things fresh, and is part of the reason Goth has survived where others haven’t.

If, however, you’re testing the waters in your local scene and are finding your local Goths not to be particularly friendly sorts, do try out other clubs and hangouts in your area, as some clubs are less welcoming than others. You might find you have to travel a while (many Goths will travel to the scene rather than wait for something to happen in their city), but it will be worth it. Once you’ve befriended a few people in the scene you’ll find you make more friends pretty quickly. If all else fails, track down a club that plays your favourite tracks and befriend the DJ; DJs tend to know the scene very well and will be able to introduce you to new people and suggest good clubs.

Myth 8: “Goths all wear the same things. It’s like a uniform”

Busted! Remember when we looked at the differences between the Goth scene, the emo scene and the metal scene? Remember when I mentioned the large number of cross-overs and splinter-groups? There’s a huge amount of variation, individuality and innovation in the different sections of the Goth subculture. If you’ve looked at my article on the different subgroups you’ll have some idea of the different basic styles that are possible, and remember, new combinations and sub-subgroups are appearing all the time. Personally, I don’t see that much visual common-ground between a leather-and-fishnet-clad rivethead, a corseted Romantigoth with flowing hair and ruffled petticoats, and a neon-garbed, synthetic-dreaded Cybergoth.

This gaggle of Cybergoths show off influences from science-fiction, period costume, BDSM fashion and beyond. Note the difference between these guys and the people in the other pictures

I think this particular myth has arisen from three things: one, unless you’re really familiar with the scene, you’re unlikely to be able to pick out Goths in the street because in their day-to-day lives many don’t dress in a particularly recognisable way; they might even be wearing colours! Secondly, unless you go to a Goth club, you’ll only really see Goths in their everyday garb, which is, of course, a lot less flamboyant and extravagant than what they might wear to clubs or gigs. And third, people tend to focus on the things that Goths have in common, the dark colours, the heavy makeup and so on, rather than the things that set them apart. But by that logic, people who follow mainstream fashion all look the same, and, hell, everyone on earth looks the same.

What is true is that Goth fashions do have common roots and common aesthetics. We draw heavily from period fashions (particularly Victorian mourning costumes and medieval outfits), from punk fashion and from BDSM culture. We favour dark and jewel toned colours, elaborate or striking makeup, boots, and extravagant hairstyles, often dyed exotic colours, backcombed to oblivion or accentuated with extensions. If you have a good look at some of the photos I’ve included in this article, you should be able to see just how much we can do with black!

Just to prove my credentials: this shifty-looking individual with smudged lipstick and terrible hair is me, sporting a 2010 M’era Luna t-shirt and slightly too much jewellery.

If you’d like to look into the dark and wonderful world of Goth a bit more, let me point you towards the following marvellous resources:

Gothic Charm School: It’s a website, it’s a book, it’s a youtube series… It’s very handy! Jilian Venters, “The Lady of the Manners”, provides etiquette tips for Goths along with vital information about the scene itself. Her youtube series is particularly handy for the basics.

Goth Chic by Gavin Baddeley is an essential guide to the history of the Goth scene, it’s music, it’s sexuality and the film, literature and television that inspire it. Unlike many writers who have dealt with the Goth scene, Baddeley is fairly tolerant and unbiased in his treatment.

Goth: Vamps and Dandies by Gavin Baddeley is a beautiful book for anyone interested in the development of Goth fashion, illustrating the inspiration and the ways modern Goths use it.

Mick Mercer’s website is full of interesting archives and the latest reviews of Goth music. If you’re looking for a place to start building your Goth collection, this is it.

The History of Goth on DJ Pete Scathe’s website is an excellent resource for pictures and information on the very beginnings of the Goth scene, in the days of Bauhaus, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Sex Gang Children and the Birthday Party. For anyone who doubts the links between punk and Goth, this is the place to look. He also includes an excellent selection of early promo videos and interviews that capture the essence of the Batcave sound

For more on the earlier days of the scene this article from Stylus magazine is useful, especially the list of “essential” Goth records.

If you’d like to read more of my articles on the subject, please have a look at:

Baby Bats to Eldergoths a guide to 21st Century Goth Culture

Hate Crimes Would You Kill Someone Because Of The Way They Dressed

The Goth Dictionary

            To begin, let me tell you of the brilliant minds with which I keep company. Denis Dedirot, (whose Encyclopedie caused quite a scandal when it was published and is still quite popular about Europe), is of like mind with myself, in believing that there should be tolerance of all religions, and man should not be limited in his beliefs.  The work of Dedirot has defined the philosophes as a society and given us influential power among European elitists.  I like to think of it as the ‘Bible of the philosphes’, as it expresses many of our concerns with traditional French society, including the illogical thinking behind superstitions and religious beliefs that are so prevalent in French society today.  Dedirot questions all authority, including that of reason itself. The work of Dedirot is read all over the Continent, as we speak, as well as throughout the colonial empires abroad.  Sovereigns and ministers that consult the Encyclopedie for guidance include Frederick II of Prussia, Catherine II of Russia, Joseph II of Austria, Leopold, the archduke of Tuscany, Charles III of Spain, Joseph I of Portugal and Sweden’s Gustavus III.  I predict that one day governments will be based on many of the principles found there in.

            Many who are part of our social circle search out opportunities to influence the thinking of sovereigns, either directly or indirectly, through those who are rich and powerful, and have influence with national leaders that could be swayed to see our reason.  Leaders of nations must be swayed by the thoughts that we put forward.  My good friend, Charles de Secondat, the baron de Montesquieu, expresses his political beliefs in his work, “The Spirit of the Laws”, which serves as a platform against despotism.  In it, he describes the three types of government and points out the weaknesses of each.  He puts forth the brilliant concept of separating the powers of government and assigning to each group, accountability to the others, so that no one person or group can overstep their authority.  It is a feasible plan, which could afford the rulers that would care to take his advice, a successful reign and popularity with the masses.  He models his system after England’s parliamentary system, which we both admire greatly. 

            There is something terribly wrong with an absolutist governmental system, such as that of France, where government office is treated as property and can be bought and sold like a commodity.  Such was the case when Louis XIV was in power.  Although his extravagances almost ran the country to ruin, it’s true, and he allowed the peasants to pay the price for his luxurious expenditures, there were others that came before him, which were much worse.

Under the rule of the young monarch, Louis XV, which for many years, might as well have been under the rule of Fleury, was a time of outrageous taxation, in spite of the reforms that Fleury tried to implement to improve the conditions.  Not only were the people, mainly the urban artisans and rural peasants, required to pay the king’s taxes, but also those demanded by the nobility and clergy.  The poorest of the citizens were expected to pay the most.  This, of course, caused much resentment of the masses, which was reflected on the streets and coffeehouses of Paris at the time.  As the Neapolitan ambassador was heard to say about the gap in lifestyles between the classes, “In France,…”nine-tenths of the people die of hunger, one- tenth of indigestion.” (Dersin, 36-37).     

Throughout Europe, one can find thoughts and ideas that bloomed from the expression of my own philosophy in my published works, being discussed in the salons and coffeehouses, (where the educated of Europe gather to exchange and expand upon theories and ideas and evaluate current situations within society and government).  Our works have been circulated through the institutions and Masonic lodges; everywhere that one finds those connected with literature.  The ideas conceived by the philosophes are read by those who are educated and passed on by word of mouth to those who are not, thus spreading the ideas that slavery is improper and should be abolished; that no one person should have absolute power within a nation; and that religion is nothing but pure poppycock. 

            I am a scholarly writer, as well as a playwright, and my writing challenges traditional theories and presents ideas that enlighten those who are willing to listen and learn.  My play, “Candide” is a satirical statement about that very topic; the persecution of those that believe differently from one another and through it, I emphasize the need for citizens to treat one another justly, rather than the current state of affairs, where often, justice is not served to all.  I employ quill and paper almost constantly. In fact I once penned so many works in one decade, that Fredrick II wondered aloud if there “must be more then one Voltaire” (Dersin, 81).   Men should have the freedom to believe as they wish and practice the religion of their choice, no matter what the government or social elites believe. There are some who would speak out against us and our ideas, but they are small and closed minded, most being members of the clergy, whom I have a great distaste for and care not what their opinions might be.

            It is not that our enlightened thinking is unique, but that it is based on reason and rationalism. It is widely accepted because of a stage set for society in the past, by the inquisitive nature of Louis XIV, who discredited Christianity and supported attacks on the bases of political autocracy by the Duke of Burgundy in “Telemaque”, and criticism of the old regime by Vauban, (although his book was suppressed and never reached the public). In fact, many of our ideas were formulated by early thinkers, such as Rene Descartes, John Locke and Isaac Newton.  Without the ideas of these great men, as well as others, the philosophes would have no basis for their theories. Descartes and Pierre Bayle advocated toleration and rationalism in the seventeenth century, and it was Bayle who visualized an international Republic of Letters, an elite society in its own right, made up of the most brilliant minds of their time, which essentially defines the philosophes.  Locke’s premise that we are entitled to certain natural rights as men, and equality for all set the basis for my theories of equality and justice, and the rights of man.  The Newtonian theory of relativity is what prompts us to question traditional beliefs in the first place.

            Original or not, our thoughts and theories are quite popular throughout the continent.  This is why I say that we will influence nations.  We have the advantage of being respected and accepted in French society, as well as by neighboring nations.  We have the ears of several European sovereigns, though never our own.  Most importantly, we have the ability of letters, which allows us to spread our thinking to the farthest reaches of the continent, as well as abroad, to all who are capable of reading the written word.  This gives us the power and influence that I have claimed.  Great leaders will one day base their governmental systems on our ideas, and great nations will structure their governmental systems upon our recommendations.  I envision governments that are not abusive of their power, where citizens are treated equally and no one is persecuted because of their beliefs.  You must believe me.  It is possible.  I, Voltaire have predicted it to be.

References

Ashley, Maurice. Louis XIV and the Greatness of France. New York: The Free Press,1965.

Darnton, Robert. George Washington’s False Teeth: An Unconventional Guide to the       Eighteenth Century. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2003.

Dersin, Denise, ed. What Was Life Like During the Age of Reason: France, AD 1660-1800.

            Alexandria: Time-Life Books, 1999.

Schama, Simon. Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,

            1989.

Tipton, Brutus C. “Deism: A New Beginning”. In Nature’s God We Trust: A New Cycle of the

            Ages: Deism. World Union of Deist. 24 July 2008.

            <http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm>

Frederick the Great- Frederick II “The Great” was born in 1712 and lived until 1786. His father was an authoritarian man who attacked his own citizens in the street. One day Frederick tried to escape the kingdom with his friend, but when his father caught him, his father forced him to watch the execution of his childhood friend. This outrageous behavior may have caused Frederick to desire better treatment of the citizens. He was an educated and enlightened king. When he inherited the Holenzoloran dynasty in 1740 which included the 4th largest army and the richest treasury in Europe, he changed Prussia. According to Kishansky’s book entitled Civilization in the West, Frederick’s two goals were to acquire the Polish corrider of West Prussia that serparated his German and Prussian territories; and to aquire the argriculturally and industrially rich province of Silesia. Within two months of his coronation he completed his the task, and it was as rich in resources as Frederick had imagined. According to Kishlansky on 563, “by the end of Fredrick’s reign, Prussia had become a model for beurocratic organization, military reform and enlighted rule”. He was able to accomplish this because he was an enlightened King. Fredrick the Great ascended Prussia to a great military power through his army. He instituted a miltary college, to train better officers. During his reign, Frederick forged an allience with the Prussian noblitity that united them to a unified state.

The Peace of Paris(1763)- England wins the French Indian War, which bankrupts France. The Peace of Paris was a treaty signed by Great Britain, France, Spain, and Portugual in 1763. This treaty ended the Seven Years War (The French and Indian War).

Louis XIV (1643-1715)- Louis XIV was born in 1638 in France, and lived until 1715. He ascended the throne and ruled as king of France and Navarre in 1643.

Triangular Trade- Triangular Trade is a term used to refer to the trade between three regions. This type of trade is useful in situations where three countries have commodities that each other need. One example of such a trade is the Triangular Slave Trade involving Europe and Africa and the West Indies. Europe needed to buy slaves from Africa to sell to the West Indies. These slaves would then work the sugar cane fields that was then sold to Europe to use in their tea.

Isaac Newton- Isaac Newton was born in 1643 in England and died in 1727. He studied at Cambridge and published the Philosophy Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687; desribing the three laws of motion. This contribution to the scientific community aided the invention of new weaponry, and advanced the scientific revolution.

Robespierre- Robespierre was born in 1758 and lived until 1794. He was known for his leadership during the Reign of Terror period of the French Revolution. He was admant in reforming the current government. Robespierre was executed in 1794 for treason.

Montesquieu-

Rousseau-

Voltaire- (1694-1778) also known as François-Marie Arouet was a french enlightened writer, essayist, deist, and philosopher. He was important for his wit, philosopher sport, and defense of civil liberties such as freedom of religion. He was an outspoken supporter of social reform despite strict censorship laws and harsh penalties for those who broke them. A satirical polemicist, he frequently made use of his works to criticize Christian Church dogma and the French institutions of his day. Voltaire wrote a book called Philosopher Letters Concerning the English Nations in which he distingushed between people of two different nations, the french and british. Voltaire demonstrated the superority of the British. The British valued people for their merit rather than their birth. The British people

The Estates General- The Estates General of 1789

Louis XVI-Louis XVI was born in 1754 in France and lived until 1793.

Marie Antoinette- Marie Antoinette was born in 1755 in Austria and lived until 1793. She married Louis XVI of France and in 1775, Louis XVI became King of France, and she became his Queen. This was much to the dismay of the people of France not merely because she wasn’t French; but also because she lived a life of extreme exuberance during the French Revolution. This infuriated the French citizens and, even though she was considered a great mother, she was accused of teaching her son how to masturbate. Therefore, the citizens deemed her an unpure mother; and according to Kishlansky’s book, Civilization in the West; she was convicted of treason in and executed by guillotine in 1793.

The Reign of Terror- The Reign of Terror was a period of about twelve months during the French Revolution during which citizens performed mass exucutions by guillotine. During this treacheurous time during which approximately 40,000 lives were taken by guillotine alone. Most of these lives were peasents accused of treasonous crimes such as rebellion. The Rreign of Terror started in 1793