The following is an excerpt from a recently filmed TED presentation (watch in full here) in which Bill Gates talks about how we humans can go about lowering our evil carbon footprint. Near the end he says...
"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent!" [About 1 Billion People!]
WHAT?! Hang on a minute Mr Gates! Aren't vaccines etc. supposed to SAVE lives? So why would doing a "really great job" on these things LOWER the population by more than a billion?! Shouldn't it reduce deaths, thereby increasing global population? Is the evil Microsoft founder and his eugenicist buddies planning something?
In May of last year, Bill Gates attended a secret meeting with the likes of David Rockefeller and Ted Turner to discuss population control. As documented in the film ENDGAME, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is heavily involved in the eugenics agenda.
Here we have it from the horse's mouth. They want to reduce global population and apparently vaccines and quote "health care" will play a role in that. Make of that what you will!
Edit:
Some have suggested that "10 or 15 percent" probably meant of 9 billion, not 6.8 billion. And he was probably referring to limiting the population GROWTH by 10-15%, not reducing the CURRENT population by 10-15%. So instead of going up to 9 billion, it will only go up to about 7 billion. The point still stands though. Regardless of whether he's referring to reducing the current population or limiting population growth, he said vaccines and health care will play a role in it. That's the issue here.
See Also ...
Bill Gates: Use Vaccines To Lower Population
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Beam Yourself Up Curley!
So, one of the rare moments of speculation on this blog was not suprisingly seized upon by the 9/11 truth gossip artists. In my last post I talked about the possibility of man-made earthquakes and used a US Air Force document that discusses the physics of teleportation as evidence that technology is much more advanced than we think. Now of course Strawman Pat made out that I was claiming the government has teleportation machines, when I never said that, I was simply pointing out the existence of the document.
See that's what we do here, we read documents. We read scientific literature. We do research! We're not just some blogger parrots who act like we know what we're talking about while attacking people's character. And we're skeptical of both sides. We don't endorse Pentagon no-plane theories or fake phone call theories, and we're skeptical of the assumption that "pull it" was a confession. We stick to science.
Do I personally sometimes get annoyed when I see politicians and celebrities exploiting tragedies, like they did with Haiti, or throwing an agenda in our face, like when Beyoncé marched with stormtroopers at the Grammys, and feel compelled to rant about it? Sure. That's because I'm human.
Most of the time however I stick to the facts. And one fact I learned, and have referenced a number of times, is that Southcom was, just by coincidence, preparing for a drill based on the scenario of a natural disaster in Haiti, the day before the earthquake ... Fact! What people do with that fact is entirely up to them. I have never proposed a theory of what I think happened. I'll leave that to the experts in that field. Would it surprise me if it was man-made? No. Just like it wouldn't surprise me if the recent earthquake in Chile was man-made. It's called being skeptical (real skepticism, not "skeptic" skepticism) and open minded. There are lots of problems in the world that are rarely talked about in the mainstream such as poverty and depleted uranium, so as a general rule of thumb, if a crisis rapidly escalates into a global cultural phenomenon, there's probably an agenda.
As I said, they blew up skyscrapers with nanotechnology back in 2001. Another fact! You debunkers can deny it all you want but the fact is basic chemistry proves that the red material is thermitic. This stuff ignites when heated to 400-450°C and after ignition we find molten iron. Since iron doesn't melt until 1500°C, this ignition temperature of 400-450°C couldn't possibly melt iron. So the fact that we find molten iron is proof that some kind of chemical reaction has occurred. Anyone who has read the paper and watched the lectures by Jones and Harrit and still believes it's something innocent, is suffering from deep denialism! That's why I coined the term "thermite denier", because it really is that obvious.
Now of course our speculation is really the only thing ScrewLooseChange can comment on. They can't refute the existence of the thermite, so instead they just ridicule Steven Jones when he speculates about explosive paint/fireproofing or thermite matches. When it comes to actual evidence, they are ... well ... screwed. Well here are two evidence-filled videos of mine still waiting to be debunked. Come on Pat, let's see what you got!
Yet Another "9/11 Was An Inside Job" Song
Evidence
We do agree with OUR rebunkers on one thing ... Darwin may very well have been wrong.
Related Info:
Sometimes I Forget
We Don't Care For Free Speech...
See that's what we do here, we read documents. We read scientific literature. We do research! We're not just some blogger parrots who act like we know what we're talking about while attacking people's character. And we're skeptical of both sides. We don't endorse Pentagon no-plane theories or fake phone call theories, and we're skeptical of the assumption that "pull it" was a confession. We stick to science.
Do I personally sometimes get annoyed when I see politicians and celebrities exploiting tragedies, like they did with Haiti, or throwing an agenda in our face, like when Beyoncé marched with stormtroopers at the Grammys, and feel compelled to rant about it? Sure. That's because I'm human.
Most of the time however I stick to the facts. And one fact I learned, and have referenced a number of times, is that Southcom was, just by coincidence, preparing for a drill based on the scenario of a natural disaster in Haiti, the day before the earthquake ... Fact! What people do with that fact is entirely up to them. I have never proposed a theory of what I think happened. I'll leave that to the experts in that field. Would it surprise me if it was man-made? No. Just like it wouldn't surprise me if the recent earthquake in Chile was man-made. It's called being skeptical (real skepticism, not "skeptic" skepticism) and open minded. There are lots of problems in the world that are rarely talked about in the mainstream such as poverty and depleted uranium, so as a general rule of thumb, if a crisis rapidly escalates into a global cultural phenomenon, there's probably an agenda.
As I said, they blew up skyscrapers with nanotechnology back in 2001. Another fact! You debunkers can deny it all you want but the fact is basic chemistry proves that the red material is thermitic. This stuff ignites when heated to 400-450°C and after ignition we find molten iron. Since iron doesn't melt until 1500°C, this ignition temperature of 400-450°C couldn't possibly melt iron. So the fact that we find molten iron is proof that some kind of chemical reaction has occurred. Anyone who has read the paper and watched the lectures by Jones and Harrit and still believes it's something innocent, is suffering from deep denialism! That's why I coined the term "thermite denier", because it really is that obvious.
Now of course our speculation is really the only thing ScrewLooseChange can comment on. They can't refute the existence of the thermite, so instead they just ridicule Steven Jones when he speculates about explosive paint/fireproofing or thermite matches. When it comes to actual evidence, they are ... well ... screwed. Well here are two evidence-filled videos of mine still waiting to be debunked. Come on Pat, let's see what you got!
Yet Another "9/11 Was An Inside Job" Song
Evidence
We do agree with OUR rebunkers on one thing ... Darwin may very well have been wrong.
Related Info:
Sometimes I Forget
We Don't Care For Free Speech...
Barack Obama – the world in his hands Caricature
Yesterday I started this caricature drawing of Barack Obama. It was progressing well, until I decided to use grey pen for his skin. I know, I know, I’ve said this before, when will I ever learn. I should have used a Copic marker pen, not a pigment pen, sigh…
Anyway here’s Barack, the skin tone is too dark, I know, but it was that or leave him even more blotchy – I didn’t like that option!
As I haven’t done a caricature for a while, I thought I’d post him. I’ve also finished my abstracts. Two have worked really well but the third is so-so. Still debating the Summer exhibition entry, no decision yet. I can have a maximum of 2 entries, so they need to be right. I suspect they need to be fairly traditional but looking at the judges that might not be the case. Don’t you wish you could read minds sometimes?
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Sounds of Explosions- How Much Do They Matter?
Looks like we don't actually need the "sounds" of explosions to warrent a new investigation after all. We got'm, but we don't really need'm. So, enough with the nit-picking debunkers.
Related Info:
WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions
NFPA 921-18.1 Chapter 18 Explosions
We Don't Care for Free Speech...
...Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog says so anyhow. I don't recall starting a campaign trying to get his blog removed from the internet. I pick my battles and I refuse to have them picked for me any longer by so-called debunkers leaving comments on this blog. They have an open comment policy, we do not, end of story. Perhaps his gripe should be with blogger.com which allows this option.
The internet is funny this way, everybody thinks they are entitled to have their two cents posted right under your two pennies. If someone writes a book their critics do not get a column under each page in which to comment. Their critics can, however, write whatever they please elsewhere and then the author decides which are worthy of response.
Granted, I could just let the comments sit if I deem them unworthy of a response, but I cannot bring myself to do that when they are on the same page as my entry.
Related Info:
The internet is funny this way, everybody thinks they are entitled to have their two cents posted right under your two pennies. If someone writes a book their critics do not get a column under each page in which to comment. Their critics can, however, write whatever they please elsewhere and then the author decides which are worthy of response.
Granted, I could just let the comments sit if I deem them unworthy of a response, but I cannot bring myself to do that when they are on the same page as my entry.
Related Info:
Abstracts today
I wasn’t able to finish anything last night, too busy working on some abstracts. Hopefully later on today – I’m waiting for masking to dry then I can start the painting.
I’ve linked all my sites together now. All seems to be working nicely, so far... I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that I want to do more fine arts. I’m not going to stop doing caricatures, I don’t think, but I’m getting a real kick out of the abstracts in particular, plus I think my opportunities for general art sales might be more open to fine arts than caricatures. I’m thinking of the Art trail, which, ironically, does not feature my artwork this time, but I’m still hopeful for the future. It’s a bit frustrating, given all the work I’m putting in, that this block will get lots of advertising whilst the block which featured my work was not advertised at all. However, I’m not going to let that get me down, rejection is normal in this business!
I need to look to the exhibition at Stowe, deadline for entries is 15th March. I’ve submitted a piece to the Society for all artists (SAA) I’m also wondering about the Summer exhibition this year. The deadline is soon, but I’m not sure what the enter. The theme is Raw!
Friday, February 26, 2010
Not again!!!!
After a lovely, productive day yesterday it all went a bit “Pete Tong” when the youngest was sick as we were about to sit down for dinner. Today he’s been a limpet but he’s on the mend now. I’m hoping this evening will be better. I spent the time cuddling and trying to get my head around the site optimisation information. My head feels like a sponge, there may be a lot in there but it’s leaking out as rapidly as water does from a real one!!!!!
I’m hoping to get something done this evening, and I’ll post an image later if I do.
Demonstrations in Nepal
NEPAL: On February 22d 2010, thousands of Nepalese monarchists poured into Kathmandu following the appeal of the Monarchist Parliamentary Party « Rastrya Prajatantra Party Nepal »(RPP-N). Demonstrators, boasting a popular petition that gathered about two million signatures demanding a constitutional referendum, occupied the centre of the Nepalese capital, almost paralyzing the city.There were reportedly several incidents, although we don’t have precise information in that regard. But it seems, according to our sources, that the police forces arrested about half a thousand citizens. Among the people under arrest are to be found the leaders and representatives of the RPP-N.
In front of the magnitude of repression, the exiled sovereign, H.M Gyanedra met the Indian authorities who stated that they were highly concerned about the home affairs situation of Nepal. Less than two years after the Republic was proclaimed, Nepal seems to be on the verge of another Revolution, this time in favour of a return of Monarchy. This reversal of situation is taking place after a rapid social and economic deterioration of the country. This illustrating the incapacity of Maoist revolutionaries and their moderate republican allies to handle with the situation.
Since 09:00 a.m this morning, thousands of Rastrya Prajatantra Party Nepal (RPP-N) are pacifically blocking the accesses to Singha Durbar and before Padmodaya School Putalisadak, Anamnagar and Maithigar, demanding constitutional monarchy to be integrated to the new Constitution. During the demonstrations, executives of the RPP-N were wounded by the authorities and there were numerous arrests.
Source: The International Monarchist Conference
Anniversaries
So today is the 17th anniversary of 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center; an attack which killed 6 people, injured more than a thousand and was at least allowed to happen or at worst completely orchestrated by the FBI.
It is also the 16th anniversary of Bill Hicks' death. 16 years on and western governments continue to arm foreign nations with farming equipment and then bomb them, natural drugs continue to be demonized, so-called musicians continue to orally pleasure satan - while people in advertising and marketing continue do his bidding, "back-and-to-the-left" is still a hotly debated topic, the Pope continues to favour bullet proof plexiglass over the protection of god, my fellow non-smokers (here in the UK at least) have ruined nights out, and sadly there still isn't a TV show called "Let's Hunt and Kill Billy Ray Cyrus"!
*Sigh* ... RIP Bill.
It's also been about a year since I started contributing to this blog. This time last year I was making my "I Am Not A Conspiracy Theorist" video, which was the video that prompted JM to invite me to join this blog. Even though my video editing has improved quite a bit since then, that video is still one of my favourites, mostly because of the music. My next video which I've barely started is going to be about life, the universe and everything (I may even call it "42" haha!). Yesterday I downloaded an audiobook of Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time", because I wanted to use a quote in the video, and I was bitterly disappointed to find that the audiobook isn't actually narrated by Stephen Hawking! I mean seriously, how hard would it have been to copy the text into his speech synthesizer and hit a button? An audio clip of his digital voice talking about how the universe appears to be finely-tuned for life would have been an awesome addition, but no :(. Maybe I can find a lecture clip or something of him talking about it. I refuse to do the typical YouTube thing and just use MicroSoft Sam.
Over at the 9/11 truth gossip blog there isn't really much to report. They seem to be excited about the fact that Steven Jones is now talking about Haiti, because it proves he's crazy apparently.
Haiti? A false flag? What kind of crazy person would think that?! A drill goes live and a bunch of mass murdering war criminals and celebrity whores beg the public to donate money to support the militarization of an oil rich island. Nothing suspicious there! I haven't seen such a sickening display of vampiric exploitation since Michael Jackson's funeral. And if they could blow up skyscrapers with nanotechnology back in 2001, the idea of them being able to create earthquakes in 2010 isn't much of a stretch. Hell, there's a publicly available US Air Force document that seriously discusses the prospect of teleportation! This is what's out in the open. Imagine the black projects going on in the ultra secret underground laboratories!
So, as the 9/11 truth movement continues it's battle for mainstream attention, and the global warming alarmists deny the scandals and continue to chant their pseudo-religious "settled science" mantra, and as Haiti is slowly forgotten about by the masses, the British tabloids are focusing on the important stuff. Apparently Cheryl Tweedy has split up with her husband! I've said it before and I'll say it again, I wonder what aliens would think of us! Here's a great song I found on YouTube on that subject...
Are The Aliens Like Us?
Well I never saw a UFO
But I wonder if it's true
If there's a race of alien critters out there
Just like me and you
Do they get uptight in traffic
Do they laugh and dance and sing
Do they pick their nose in private
And spray their friends with silly string
Yeah when I look up to the sky I wonder
Are the aliens like us?
Do they cry when hearts get broken
Do they drink to kill the pain
Do they lie about their sex life
Do they lie about their age
Do they hate the jobs their doing
Do they sneak out to get high
Do they pay too many taxes
To a government that lies
When I look up to the sky I wonder
Are the aliens like us?
Would they blow up their own buildings
Just so they could start a war
Do they brainwash their own citizens
Do their rich control their poor
Are they ruled by evil bankers
In a global police state
Are their constitutions crumbling
Is their education fake
When I look up to the sky I wonder
Are the aliens like us?
Yeah when I look up to the sky I wonder
Are they messed up just like us?
Titles: Duke and Duchess
Duke is the highest of the five grades of the peerage. For guidance on how to address the three royal dukes (York, Gloucester and Kent) see Other Royals section).Duke is the highest of the five ranks of the peerage, standing above the ranks of marquess, earl, viscount and baron.
The title duke is derived from the Latin dux, a leader. The title originally signified Sovereign status, for example William the Conqueror was Duke of Normandy, and it was not adopted as a peerage title until 1337, when King Edward III conferred the Dukedom of Cornwall upon his eldest son, the Black Prince.
Dukedoms were created in Parliament by the fastening of a ceremonial sword to a belt or girdle (cincture). This ceremony was traditionally used until 1615, when it was replaced by the conferring of letters patent under the Great Seal (peerage patents are always created by letters patent under the Great Seal, which represents the Sovereign's authority).
The first subject to receive a dukedom who was not a member of the royal family, nor one nearly related, was Sir William de la Pole, Marquess of Suffolk, who was created Duke of Suffolk in 1448. A Prince of the Royal Blood is usually created a duke either shortly after coming of age or upon his marriage. The Queen's second son, Prince Andrew, was created Duke of York upon his marriage in 1986.
The Queen's youngest son, Prince Edward, broke with royal tradition when he chose the title of Earl of Wessex upon his marriage in 1999. Buckingham Palace announced that the Earl of Wessex will be granted the dukedom of Edinburgh when the title reverts to The Crown (the title will only revert to The Crown on both the death of the current Duke of Edinburgh, and the succession of the Prince of Wales to the throne). The other royal dukes are The Queen's first cousins, the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent (both grandsons of King George V).
The first subject to receive a dukedom who was not a member of the royal family, nor one nearly related, was Sir William de la Pole, Marquess of Suffolk, who was created Duke of Suffolk in 1448. A Prince of the Royal Blood is usually created a duke either shortly after coming of age or upon his marriage. The Queen's second son, Prince Andrew, was created Duke of York upon his marriage in 1986.
The Queen's youngest son, Prince Edward, broke with royal tradition when he chose the title of Earl of Wessex upon his marriage in 1999. Buckingham Palace announced that the Earl of Wessex will be granted the dukedom of Edinburgh when the title reverts to The Crown (the title will only revert to The Crown on both the death of the current Duke of Edinburgh, and the succession of the Prince of Wales to the throne). The other royal dukes are The Queen's first cousins, the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent (both grandsons of King George V).
At present there are 24 dukes (not including royal dukes). The premier duke and earl of England is the Duke of Norfolk. His ancestor John Howard was created Duke of Norfolk in 1483, but because he inherited his dukedom through his mother, Margaret Mowbray, the duke's precedence (ie his seniority in terms of the antiquity of his title) is dated 1397, which is when Margaret Mowbray's father was created Duke of Norfolk.
The premier peer of Scotland is the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon (created 1643). The premier duke, marquess and earl of Ireland is the Duke of Leinster (created 1766). The most recent (non-royal) dukedom to be created is Westminster in 1874.
Since 1989 only one dukedom has become extinct, Portland (in 1990), but the Earldom of Portland continues and is currently held by Timothy Bentinck, who plays David Archer in BBC Radio 4's drama series 'The Archers'
A duke is always so described, unlike the lower ranks of the peerage. If reference is made to only one duke he may be called 'the Duke' but if distinction is necessary, or on introduction, he should be referred to as 'the Duke of …..'.
Ecclesiastical, ambassadorial and armed forces ranks precede the ducal rank. For example, Major-General the Duke of …..'.
When a duke is also a privy counsellor or has received a knighthood he may use the appropriate post-nominal letters.
The wife of a duke is always described as the Duchess, or the Duchess of ….. if distinction is required or on introduction.
In official documents the style of The Most Noble ….. should still be used for both a duke and duchess.
How to address a Duke and DuchessThe recommended (social) style of address for all non-royal dukes is as follows:
Beginning of letter: Dear Duke/Duchess
End of letter: Yours sincerely
Envelope :The Duke/Duchess of Norfolk
Verbal Communication: Duke/Duchess
Invitation* & joint form of address: The Duke and Duchess of Norfolk
Description in conversation: The Duke/Duchess of Norfolk
List of Directors or Patrons: The Duke/Duchess of Norfolk
Place Card: The Duke/Duchess of Norfolk
Legal document: The Most Noble Edward William Duke of Norfolk, The Most Noble Georgina Susan Duchess of Norfolk
*Note that, traditionally, invitations to a married couple, when sent to their home address, are addressed to the wife alone, with both names being inscribed on the invitation card. It has become increasingly acceptable, however, to address the envelope with both names.
Widow of the Duke
Officially the widow of a duke is known as 'The Dowager Duchess of Norfolk' (unless there is already a dowager duchess in that family still living in which case the widow of the junior duke is known by her forename, eg Anne, Duchess of Norfolk).
In practice, many widows prefer to use their forename in place of 'Dowager'. If in doubt, use of the forename is recommended.
If the present holder of the dukedom is unmarried, the widow of the previous duke does not use the term of either The Dowager Duchess of Norfolk, or Anne, Duchess of Norfolk, but continues to be known as The Duchess of Norfolk.
How to address the Widow of a DukeThe recommended (social) style of address is as follows:
Beginning of letter Dear Duchess
End of letter Yours sincerely
Envelope The Dowager (or Anne) Duchess of Norfolk
Verbal communication Duchess
Invitation The Dowager (or Anne) Duchess of Norfolk
Description in conversation The Duchess of Norfolk
List of Directors or Patrons The Dowager (or Anne) Duchess of Norfolk
Place card The Dowager (or Anne) Duchess of Norfolk
Legal document The Most Noble Anne Mary Teresa Duchess of Norfolk
Former wife of Duke
If a marriage between a duke and duchess has been dissolved, the former wife (although no longer a peeress) may continue to use her title as a duke's wife, preceded by her forename (unless she remarries*).
How to address the Former Wife of a DukeThe recommended (social) style of address is as follows:
Beginning of letter Dear Duchess
End of letter Yours sincerely
Envelope Jillian, Duchess of Hamilton
Verbal communication Duchess
Invitation Jillian, Duchess of Hamilton
Description in conversation The Duchess of Hamilton
List of Directors or Patrons Jillian, Duchess of Hamilton
Place card Jillian, Duchess of Hamilton
Legal document Jillian Duchess of Hamilton
*If the former wife of a duke subsequently remarries she adopts her style of address from her present husband. Thus if Jillian, Duchess of Hamilton, marries Mr Cuthbert Robinson she becomes Mrs Cuthbert Robinson.
Sons of a Duke
Eldest Son of a DukeThe eldest (or only) son of a duke will use one of his father's lesser peerage titles. For example, the son and heir apparent of the Duke of Rutland is known as the Marquess of Granby and the appropriate forms of address for a Marquess by courtesy therefore apply to him and his family.
If the duke is of the peerage of Scotland please refer to Scottish Title of Master
See Peerages by Courtesy
Younger Sons of a DukeThe younger sons of a duke have the courtesy title of 'Lord' before their forename and surname.
Prefixes such as His Excellency, Major General, The Rt Rev, The Rt Hon etc. precede his courtesy title.
How to address the Younger Son of a DukeThe recommended (social) style of address is as follows:
Beginning of letter Dear Lord Edward
End of letter Yours sincerely
Envelope Lord Edward Fitzgerald
Verbal communication Lord Edward
Invitation* Lord Edward Fitzgerald
Description in conversation Lord Edward
List of Directors or Patrons Lord Edward Fitzgerald
Place card Lord Edward Fitzgerald
Legal document Edward Fitzgerald commonly called Lord Edward Fitzgerald
*Note that, traditionally, invitations to a married couple, when sent to their home address, are addressed to the wife alone, with both names being inscribed on the invitation card. It has become increasingly acceptable, however, to address the envelope with both names.
Wife of the Younger Son of a DukeThe wife of the younger son of a duke has the courtesy title of 'Lady' followed by her husband's forename and surname (unless herself the daughter of a duke or marquess *).
How to address the Wife of a Younger Son of a DukeThe recommended (social) style of address is as follows:
Beginning of letter Dear Lady Edward
End of letter Yours sincerely
Envelope Lady Edward Fitzgerald
Verbal address Lady Edward
Invitation Lady Edward Fitzgerald
Description in conversation Lady Edward
List of Directors or Patrons Lady Edward Fitzgerald
Place card Lady Edward Fitzgerald
Legal document Helen Fitzgerald commonly called Lady Edward Fitzgerald
*If she is the daughter of a duke, marquess or earl, she may continue to use her own title instead of that of her husband. This style should only be used if it known to be the preferred form of address.
Widow of the Younger Son of a Duke
Her style in widowhood does not change, except on remarriage, when she adopts the style from her new husband.
Daughters of a Duke
A daughter of a duke has the style of 'Lady' before her forename and surname, eg the elder daughter of the Duke of Norfolk is Lady Rachel Fitzalan Howard.
On marriage she continues to use the same style, with her husband's surname, ie when Lady Rose FitzRoy married Mr Guy Monson, she became Lady Rose Monson.
Should she marry a peer she adopts his title.
How to address the Daughters of a DukeThe recommended (social) style of address is as follows:
Beginning of letter Dear Lady Rose
End of letter Yours sincerely
Envelope Lady Rose Monson
Joint form of address Mr Guy and Lady Rose Monson
Verbal communication Lady Rose (on introduction, Lady Rose Monson)
Invitation Lady Rose Monson
Invitation* to husband & wife Mr Guy and Lady Rose Monson
Description in conversation Lady Rose
List of Directors or Patrons Lady Rose Monson
Place card Lady Rose Monson
Legal document Olivia Rose Mildred Monson commonly called Lady Rose Monson
*Note that, traditionally, invitations to a married couple, when sent to their home address, are addressed to the wife alone, with both names being inscribed on the invitation card. It has become increasingly acceptable, however, to address the envelope with both names.
Exceptions
If she marries a courtesy peer, and the precedence she derives from this is lower than that she derives from her father, she has the option of:
(a) adopting the usual style of the wife of a courtesy peer, eg Countess of Twickenham, or
(b) continuing her own style followed by the courtesy title, eg Lady Mary Twickenham.
In practice very few ladies now adopt course (b) unless the marriage has been dissolved.
If the daughter of a duke marries the younger son of a duke or marquess, again she has the option of:
(a) adopting the usual style of the wife of a younger son of a duke or marquess, eg Lady Charles Manners, or
(b) continuing her own style followed by her surname, eg Lady Mary Manners
The premier peer of Scotland is the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon (created 1643). The premier duke, marquess and earl of Ireland is the Duke of Leinster (created 1766). The most recent (non-royal) dukedom to be created is Westminster in 1874.
Since 1989 only one dukedom has become extinct, Portland (in 1990), but the Earldom of Portland continues and is currently held by Timothy Bentinck, who plays David Archer in BBC Radio 4's drama series 'The Archers'
A duke is always so described, unlike the lower ranks of the peerage. If reference is made to only one duke he may be called 'the Duke' but if distinction is necessary, or on introduction, he should be referred to as 'the Duke of …..'.
Ecclesiastical, ambassadorial and armed forces ranks precede the ducal rank. For example, Major-General the Duke of …..'.
When a duke is also a privy counsellor or has received a knighthood he may use the appropriate post-nominal letters.
The wife of a duke is always described as the Duchess, or the Duchess of ….. if distinction is required or on introduction.
In official documents the style of The Most Noble ….. should still be used for both a duke and duchess.
How to address a Duke and DuchessThe recommended (social) style of address for all non-royal dukes is as follows:
Beginning of letter: Dear Duke/Duchess
End of letter: Yours sincerely
Envelope :The Duke/Duchess of Norfolk
Verbal Communication: Duke/Duchess
Invitation* & joint form of address: The Duke and Duchess of Norfolk
Description in conversation: The Duke/Duchess of Norfolk
List of Directors or Patrons: The Duke/Duchess of Norfolk
Place Card: The Duke/Duchess of Norfolk
Legal document: The Most Noble Edward William Duke of Norfolk, The Most Noble Georgina Susan Duchess of Norfolk
*Note that, traditionally, invitations to a married couple, when sent to their home address, are addressed to the wife alone, with both names being inscribed on the invitation card. It has become increasingly acceptable, however, to address the envelope with both names.
Widow of the Duke
Officially the widow of a duke is known as 'The Dowager Duchess of Norfolk' (unless there is already a dowager duchess in that family still living in which case the widow of the junior duke is known by her forename, eg Anne, Duchess of Norfolk).
In practice, many widows prefer to use their forename in place of 'Dowager'. If in doubt, use of the forename is recommended.
If the present holder of the dukedom is unmarried, the widow of the previous duke does not use the term of either The Dowager Duchess of Norfolk, or Anne, Duchess of Norfolk, but continues to be known as The Duchess of Norfolk.
How to address the Widow of a DukeThe recommended (social) style of address is as follows:
Beginning of letter Dear Duchess
End of letter Yours sincerely
Envelope The Dowager (or Anne) Duchess of Norfolk
Verbal communication Duchess
Invitation The Dowager (or Anne) Duchess of Norfolk
Description in conversation The Duchess of Norfolk
List of Directors or Patrons The Dowager (or Anne) Duchess of Norfolk
Place card The Dowager (or Anne) Duchess of Norfolk
Legal document The Most Noble Anne Mary Teresa Duchess of Norfolk
Former wife of Duke
If a marriage between a duke and duchess has been dissolved, the former wife (although no longer a peeress) may continue to use her title as a duke's wife, preceded by her forename (unless she remarries*).
How to address the Former Wife of a DukeThe recommended (social) style of address is as follows:
Beginning of letter Dear Duchess
End of letter Yours sincerely
Envelope Jillian, Duchess of Hamilton
Verbal communication Duchess
Invitation Jillian, Duchess of Hamilton
Description in conversation The Duchess of Hamilton
List of Directors or Patrons Jillian, Duchess of Hamilton
Place card Jillian, Duchess of Hamilton
Legal document Jillian Duchess of Hamilton
*If the former wife of a duke subsequently remarries she adopts her style of address from her present husband. Thus if Jillian, Duchess of Hamilton, marries Mr Cuthbert Robinson she becomes Mrs Cuthbert Robinson.
Sons of a Duke
Eldest Son of a DukeThe eldest (or only) son of a duke will use one of his father's lesser peerage titles. For example, the son and heir apparent of the Duke of Rutland is known as the Marquess of Granby and the appropriate forms of address for a Marquess by courtesy therefore apply to him and his family.
If the duke is of the peerage of Scotland please refer to Scottish Title of Master
See Peerages by Courtesy
Younger Sons of a DukeThe younger sons of a duke have the courtesy title of 'Lord' before their forename and surname.
Prefixes such as His Excellency, Major General, The Rt Rev, The Rt Hon etc. precede his courtesy title.
How to address the Younger Son of a DukeThe recommended (social) style of address is as follows:
Beginning of letter Dear Lord Edward
End of letter Yours sincerely
Envelope Lord Edward Fitzgerald
Verbal communication Lord Edward
Invitation* Lord Edward Fitzgerald
Description in conversation Lord Edward
List of Directors or Patrons Lord Edward Fitzgerald
Place card Lord Edward Fitzgerald
Legal document Edward Fitzgerald commonly called Lord Edward Fitzgerald
*Note that, traditionally, invitations to a married couple, when sent to their home address, are addressed to the wife alone, with both names being inscribed on the invitation card. It has become increasingly acceptable, however, to address the envelope with both names.
Wife of the Younger Son of a DukeThe wife of the younger son of a duke has the courtesy title of 'Lady' followed by her husband's forename and surname (unless herself the daughter of a duke or marquess *).
How to address the Wife of a Younger Son of a DukeThe recommended (social) style of address is as follows:
Beginning of letter Dear Lady Edward
End of letter Yours sincerely
Envelope Lady Edward Fitzgerald
Verbal address Lady Edward
Invitation Lady Edward Fitzgerald
Description in conversation Lady Edward
List of Directors or Patrons Lady Edward Fitzgerald
Place card Lady Edward Fitzgerald
Legal document Helen Fitzgerald commonly called Lady Edward Fitzgerald
*If she is the daughter of a duke, marquess or earl, she may continue to use her own title instead of that of her husband. This style should only be used if it known to be the preferred form of address.
Widow of the Younger Son of a Duke
Her style in widowhood does not change, except on remarriage, when she adopts the style from her new husband.
Daughters of a Duke
A daughter of a duke has the style of 'Lady' before her forename and surname, eg the elder daughter of the Duke of Norfolk is Lady Rachel Fitzalan Howard.
On marriage she continues to use the same style, with her husband's surname, ie when Lady Rose FitzRoy married Mr Guy Monson, she became Lady Rose Monson.
Should she marry a peer she adopts his title.
How to address the Daughters of a DukeThe recommended (social) style of address is as follows:
Beginning of letter Dear Lady Rose
End of letter Yours sincerely
Envelope Lady Rose Monson
Joint form of address Mr Guy and Lady Rose Monson
Verbal communication Lady Rose (on introduction, Lady Rose Monson)
Invitation Lady Rose Monson
Invitation* to husband & wife Mr Guy and Lady Rose Monson
Description in conversation Lady Rose
List of Directors or Patrons Lady Rose Monson
Place card Lady Rose Monson
Legal document Olivia Rose Mildred Monson commonly called Lady Rose Monson
*Note that, traditionally, invitations to a married couple, when sent to their home address, are addressed to the wife alone, with both names being inscribed on the invitation card. It has become increasingly acceptable, however, to address the envelope with both names.
Exceptions
If she marries a courtesy peer, and the precedence she derives from this is lower than that she derives from her father, she has the option of:
(a) adopting the usual style of the wife of a courtesy peer, eg Countess of Twickenham, or
(b) continuing her own style followed by the courtesy title, eg Lady Mary Twickenham.
In practice very few ladies now adopt course (b) unless the marriage has been dissolved.
If the daughter of a duke marries the younger son of a duke or marquess, again she has the option of:
(a) adopting the usual style of the wife of a younger son of a duke or marquess, eg Lady Charles Manners, or
(b) continuing her own style followed by her surname, eg Lady Mary Manners
Debrett's People of Today 2010 now available
This definitive guide to Britain's meritocracy is the major biographical study of the UK's most influential and successful people. Debrett's People of Today recognises the achievements of over 25,000 people drawn from every sector of society - from academics to writers, business leaders to sportsmen, civil servants to pop stars, clergy to politicians.Typically over 650 new entrants are hand-picked by Debrett's team of expert editors each year, in addition to over 20,000 amendments made to existing entries. Not all entrants are guaranteed a place in Debrett's People of Today for life, unlike certain other reference works.
Who's Included?Debrett's People of Today provides the widest possible coverage of any biographical reference book in the UK. Leading figures include chairmen, chief executives & managing directors of leading companies; members of the medical profession; directors of banks and financial institutions; architects, designers and engineers; artists, composers & musicians; members of the legal profession; directors of marketing & advertising agencies; film, theatre & television actors; editors, publishers and journalists; scientists, academics & educationalists; leading literary figures; sportsmen & sportswomen; bishops and church leaders; MPs, MEPs, MSPs, MLAs and AMs.
What's Included?For each entrant a full biographical resume is presented - the person's correct title and decorations, date of birth, family history and education, recent position, achievements, career, recreations and clubs, preferred style of address and contact details.
Quite simply, no other publication brings this breadth and depth of information together in one place to provide a snapshot of those high achievers pre-eminent in their fields.
Additional IndicesDebrett's People of Today also includes several indices to complement the biographies and act as an invaluable comprehensive reference source in their own right. These cover business, charities, civil service, clubs, education establishments, embassies, law, politics and other professional fields. Detailed contact information is provided for each of the above.
The 2010 edition is now available (published December 2009).
We aim to deliver all orders to UK addresses within 7-10 working days, although you should allow up to 28 days in exceptional circumstances.
Available on www.debretts.com
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Tragic though it may be...
... it's still funny as hell that trainer got killed by a whale.
Come on, how many signs did they need?
1. It's a KILLER whale!
2. It had killed two people before, a trainer and someone who jumped in his tank in a drunken haze.
3. The people who sold him to SeaWorld warned them to only use him for breeding purposes.
Yes, it's sad that woman died. It's sad that there are some poor SeaWorld visitors who are scarred for life having seen it (though, truthfully, I wish I had been there, but I'm a sick, morbid individual - I do wonder, did those visitors who saw it happen get refunds, or did they have to pay extra?). But can anyone not snicker uncontrollably at the irony here?
Worst of all, he drug her down by her extremely long ponytail. Guess what, SeaWorld's next move is probably going to be to implement a hair length policy. "Your hair must be this short to ride on the whales."
Perhaps now people are starting to realize whales don't belong in, what is essentially a fish bowl, and used for our entertainment. They are starting to fight back. This is just the beginning. A coup is coming. Just wait until the trained sea lions start bitch slapping their trainers. And swimming with the dolphins means the dolphins lead the people straight into a tuna net. Just wait. This poor woman was just a sign ... a sign that the marine mammals will not be oppressed any longer.
FREE WILLY!! FREE WILLY!! FREE WILLY!!
Come on, how many signs did they need?
1. It's a KILLER whale!
2. It had killed two people before, a trainer and someone who jumped in his tank in a drunken haze.
3. The people who sold him to SeaWorld warned them to only use him for breeding purposes.
Yes, it's sad that woman died. It's sad that there are some poor SeaWorld visitors who are scarred for life having seen it (though, truthfully, I wish I had been there, but I'm a sick, morbid individual - I do wonder, did those visitors who saw it happen get refunds, or did they have to pay extra?). But can anyone not snicker uncontrollably at the irony here?
Worst of all, he drug her down by her extremely long ponytail. Guess what, SeaWorld's next move is probably going to be to implement a hair length policy. "Your hair must be this short to ride on the whales."
Perhaps now people are starting to realize whales don't belong in, what is essentially a fish bowl, and used for our entertainment. They are starting to fight back. This is just the beginning. A coup is coming. Just wait until the trained sea lions start bitch slapping their trainers. And swimming with the dolphins means the dolphins lead the people straight into a tuna net. Just wait. This poor woman was just a sign ... a sign that the marine mammals will not be oppressed any longer.
FREE WILLY!! FREE WILLY!! FREE WILLY!!
Buckingham Old Gaol Watercolour Painting
I’ve finally finished my watercolour of the Old Gaol. I’ve been meaning to do it for ages and decided "now was the time" last week. I may need to touch up the painting in places, but generally I’m happy with the result.
I decided to miss out some details such as the information sign but wanted to keep the market mess in to give it a modern feel. I’ve already spotted where I need to touch up!!! It never takes me long when I’ve uploaded an image. I think I’ll get the acrylics out later, although I may have the pastels out before that.
I decided to miss out some details such as the information sign but wanted to keep the market mess in to give it a modern feel. I’ve already spotted where I need to touch up!!! It never takes me long when I’ve uploaded an image. I think I’ll get the acrylics out later, although I may have the pastels out before that.
Burke`s Peerage & Gentry new digital edition now available
Burke’s Peerage is delighted to announce our new digital edition of the definitive study of the extant Orders of Knighthood and merit of every state.World Orders of Knighthood & Merit is widely accepted as one of the most important works ever produced on the subject and will remain the definitive guide for many years to come. This 2,100 page full-colour book is of great interest to academics, historians, collectors, monarchists, heraldry enthusiasts and those who are members of any of the numerous international, noble and state Orders.
Frederik and Mary of Denmark throw open the doors of their modern new palace
24 FEBRUARY 2010After five years waiting for your new house to be ready, most people would be wanting to leap inside immediately.
But Denmark's Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary have decided to postpone their big move in order to allow the public to view their future royal residence for a limited time.
The newly renovated Frederik VIII Palace in the Amalienborg royal complex in Copenhagen, where Queen Margrethe and Prince Henrik also reside, will be open to visitors from February 27 to May 30.
Those paying the modest €5 entrance fee will be able to admire the transformed ground and first floors of the 18th-century building, which will be used for official receptions.
Every detail of the £26 million refurbishment was decided in conjunction with the prince and princess and includes the renovation of painted ceilings, canvas-clad walls and pine, marble and mosaic-covered floors.
Meanwhile, artworks by a host of contemporary Scandinavian artists add modern touches to the classic interiors.
The 1,660 square-metre gardens have also been remodelled by landscape gardener Jacob Fischery, who has added new plants, a 1,300 square-metre lawn and a 40-metre swimming pool.
Also known as the Brockdorff Palace, the building was the home of Frederik's grandparents, King Frederik IX and Queen Ingrid, but has remained empty since Ingrid died in 2000.
By moving into the palace, a former military academy, Frederik and Mary will be continuing the tradition of Denmark's heirs and regents living around Amalienborg's four royal residences.
House of Romanovs wants royal remains to be re-examined
Moscow, February 24, Interfax - The House of Romanovs has said it wants to re-examine what is thought to be the remains of the last Russian Tsar Nicholas II and his family found in Yekaterinburg.
"Unfortunately, there is too much confusion in this case and some serious errors were made when the Yekaterinburg remains were being identified," Prince Georgy Mikhailovich, the son of the Romanovs' House head Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, told Interfax on Wednesday.
"Many of the facts uncovered suggest that the Commission was staging a political show for a date, rather than working to establish the truth," Romanov said.
The remains were buried in St. Petersburg in 1998 in haste and in defiance of the opinion of the Russian Orthodox Church and the House of Romanovs, he said.
"No satisfactory answers have been provided to the ten questions, formulated by independent scholars and referred to the Commission back in 1998 by the late Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II. Meanwhile, those were questions, which interested not only experts, but also people and millions of believers. The Church needed to console these people instead of leaving them with a feeling of having been deceived. The Commission did not care. There was a farce instead of an act of repentance and purification," he said.
The remains' authenticity must be further studied, Romanov said.
"Unfortunately, there is too much confusion in this case and some serious errors were made when the Yekaterinburg remains were being identified," Prince Georgy Mikhailovich, the son of the Romanovs' House head Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, told Interfax on Wednesday.
"Many of the facts uncovered suggest that the Commission was staging a political show for a date, rather than working to establish the truth," Romanov said.
The remains were buried in St. Petersburg in 1998 in haste and in defiance of the opinion of the Russian Orthodox Church and the House of Romanovs, he said.
"No satisfactory answers have been provided to the ten questions, formulated by independent scholars and referred to the Commission back in 1998 by the late Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II. Meanwhile, those were questions, which interested not only experts, but also people and millions of believers. The Church needed to console these people instead of leaving them with a feeling of having been deceived. The Commission did not care. There was a farce instead of an act of repentance and purification," he said.
The remains' authenticity must be further studied, Romanov said.
Grand Duke of Russia gave an interview to a newspaper "The Tomorrow"
Lev Tikhomirov, in his work "monarchical state," written in the early twentieth century and which gave a theoretical justification of the monarchical principle, wrote the following: "Humanity is not always correctly guess what it is. History of Greece, the general opinion of all her political life and civil, has been a process of democratic development. And yet, it actually finished a world monarchy of Alexander of Macedon, who was the representative of cultural affairs, prepared by the preceding period of development of democracy. This exodus of the Greeks did not expect to do nothing with Themistocles, Pericles. Do not imagine, and the gallant Republicans Rome since the Punic wars of the future appearance of Caesar and Augustus "
According to opinion polls, about 20% of the citizens of modern Russia are ready to support the revival of the monarchy. It is possible however, that each of the respondents understood monarchy as something of their own. The spread of opinion in this matter is extremely wide. For some preferred a constitutional monarchy, it is decorative: as a kind of symbol that can stabilize the political life in the country and to emphasize the historical continuity of epochs. Others, conversely, looking forward to the autocratic system await full power of Caesar, which will provide the necessary centralization of power, clean Augean stables "democracy", restore the international status of Russia, arranged inside the country a semblance of the kingdom of justice.
I remember, the hero of the novel by Mikhail Bulgakov, watching crimes of bandits during the civil war, and cried in their hearts: "I am - a monarchist by conviction. But at the moment the Bolsheviks are required ..." Now you can hear something else: "I am - a socialist by conviction, but without the wise and strong king of Russia did not get out of the quagmire ... "
Editor of portal Pravaya.ru, historian Alexander Eliseev wrote once in his article "The Tsar and the Soviets!" ("Tomorrow" № 47, 2007) wrote this: "... autocracy and self-government - this is the formula of the dialectical synthesis, through which you can restore the age-old Russian rule at the next level."
Today's monarchist movement is contradictory and heterogeneous. It is the projection of the mysteries and paradoxes of denial, of what happened in March 1917. The religious meaning of the termination and restoration of the monarchy in Russia is obvious to so many Orthodox believers, though not universally accepted.
Ideological, spiritual and political nuances of monarchical consciousness superimposed on the unresolved questions about a possible way to establish a monarchy in Russia.
Modern Russia's monarchists are divided into two main groups: the so-called "Cathedral Folk" and "Legitimists." That is, the supporters of the election at the Council a new tsar, unrelated to any dynastic preferences, and supporters of the Romanov dynasty.
The first group in the early 90-ies took shape as a very powerful movement, supporting the new All-Russia Convention (Zemsky Sobor), which should elect the next tsar. Main of this movement was a monarchist and populist Vyacheslav Klykov. He urged the arrival of the new ruling dynasty, namely -the descendants of Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov. Public euphoria ended after Gaidar's reforms and shootings in 1993 and the activities of the cathedral monarchists came to nothing.
Regarding "Legitimists", here we see several trends, targeting various competing branches of the Romanov dynasty, whose representatives were born and live outside Russia." But today, the European monarchs and representatives of the ruling houses, who lost their thrones, recognize the inheritance right only Kirillovichi, which is well known and we have.
The heir to the throne of Russia, son of Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, and Prince Franz-Wilhelm of Prussia Hohenzollern, the Grand Duke George of Russia - the youngest of Kirillovich. He was born in 1981 in Madrid. From his father side, he is the great grandson of german Emperor Wilhelm II, from his mother – great-great-great grandson of Russian Emperor Alexander II. Native language of George - French, although he readily speaks and reads Spanish, English and Russian.
Prince George for their incomplete thirty years had to learn in Oxford, to work in the European Parliament, and then the agency of the European Commission on Nuclear Safety in Luxembourg. Since 2008 he works as Advisor to CEO, Norilsk Nickel, Russia, introducing this corporation in the Nickel Institute (Brussels, Belgium).
Grand Duke George has kindly agreed to talk with representatives of the newspaper “Tomorrow". Personality and perceptions of the Romanov heir, of course, will be of interest to most of our readers.
Tomorrow. Your Highness, being heir to the Imperial House, do you see yourself as a potential monarch?
Grand Duke Georgy Mikhailovich. Status of Imperial House head, which is now my mother, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna and her heir, of course, contains within itself the possibility sometime in the future to lead not only the dynasty, but also country. Of course, this can only happen if Russian people would again support the monarchical principle. If the day will come when I called to this duty, I do not turn from it. But in the present, as all the sovereigns of our home in exile: My great-grandfather, grandfather and my mother - I try to live according to the well-known principle of "Do what you must, and whether that will happen." It would be foolish to sit and dream: "And what will I do if I will ascend to the throne? I try to be useful to my Motherland in my today’s position, helping my mother in her duty and accumulating professional experience and knowledge that will be useful in any case.
Tomorrow. How, in your opinion, monarchist idea could be implemented in contemporary situation?
GD It is necessary freely expressed will of a nation-wide for the monarchy’ restoration. I'm sure if people will get honest and objective information, they will make the right conclusions and choose one that fits its genuine national interests. History shows that people mechanical majority often make mistakes. But if people feel not like "mass" and "population", but as individuals, united by common values, respect of their ancestors and themselves and willing that following generations will respect them - then people would not make mistakes. Revival of the monarchy after the Troubles of XVII century, 400 years since the end of which we will celebrate soon, clearly illustrates my words.
Tomorrow. Could the Russian monarchy be restored not as the Empire, but in the frames of the local "national state"?
GD In the foreseeable future, I do not see any prerequisites that Russia has lost its multinational character, regardless of type of its political state. But if you talk in theory ... This Empire - this is not a system of oppression of one nation by the others, but the family of fraternal peoples, united by common goals and interests, which keep the unity in diversity. Russia had originally been a multinational state and throughout its history has sought to integrate people into a single empire. But along with this, in our past there were periods when dominated by centrifugal forces. In its time to revive a central state was able to Muscovy, initially very small and even smaller than that in the impact of other similar "local national states." The reason for this, in my opinion, lies in the fact that Muscovy, on the one hand, managed to defend the hard monarchical principle, and on the other - their policy was sufficiently flexible and modern. Yes, they were able to compromise, and without betraying the principal and over several generations strategically preparing the union and the liberation of their country. Nowadays, Russia, indeed, because of the severe consequences of several revolutions of the twentieth century, thrown far back. But, I repeat, I am confident that before the "local national state" we do not ever sunk. On the contrary, I believe that Russia has a chance not only to maintain its current territorial integrity, but also attract the fraternal peoples of the former Russia Empire by the updated forms of integration. Perfectly aware that it will not pre-revolutionary Empire and the Soviet Union. However, an appeal to the best examples from the past will enable us to preserve, at least, a single cultural space.
Tomorrow. Many of the current conservative models start with the obligatory defamation of the Soviet period. How do you see the restoration of the monarchy in Russia? Political revenge or a kind of vanguard project for the Russian future? Restoration or attempt to unite the nation with consideration of the Soviet experience?
GD Very serious question. Restoration of the monarchy in any case can’t be revenge. Emperor Nicholas II abdicated it in the hope of reconciling and preventing fratricide. Imperial House of Russia did not participate in the Civil War, when it still broke. We are not "red" and not "white", and we can’t have revenge sentiments. Revolution is a terrible national tragedy. Our Dynasty greatly suffered from it. But our entire nation suffered a lot, including the direct creators and participants of the revolution from both sides. If our thoughts and desires towards the future, we must stop to reopen old wounds and remember each other offenses. My mother always called compatriots seek not what divides but what unites all of us. If we want to return Russia to its place in the world, we should not continue to blame each other, and learn to forgive and ask forgiveness. And to go forward with goodwill and solidarity, not with hatred and revenge.
Monarchy - is the idea of true national unity. Being a legitimate and hereditary, that is continuous in historical time, it brings together the country's citizens, not only for the sake of some short-term goals, but for centuries-old traditions in the name of the present and for the future. The monarchy is obliged to take into account any experience - both positive and negative. We should not forget anything to avoid a repetition of evil. Need to give moral and legal appraisal of the past. For example, nothing can justify the violent nature of the God-fighting totalitarian regimes and its class or racial genocide, when millions of people were wiped out for what they could not change under any circumstances - for their national or social origin. But in condemning the crimes and errors, with the dirty water does not have to splash out a child. There were a lot of bright and heroic in our people life in the Soviet period. My great-grandfather Emperor Kirill and my grandfather, Emperor Vladimir Kirillovich always called for a clear distinction between the godless and inhuman Marxist-Leninist ideology and the creation of the national spirit, which breaks all the shackles.
Imperial House of Russia believes that the monarchy - is a modern and progressive system of government, which has a future. It is able to synthesize the positive experiences of all periods of our history, including the Soviet one. Even my great-grandfather in one of his hits made a very correct idea: "No need to destroy any facilities, life caused, but we need to turn away from those who desecrate the human soul." I fully share this view. That is my position.
Tomorrow. Monarchic project must necessarily rely on a layer of "sovereign people". From which strata of society, in your opinion, they should come? The oligarchs, the army, the intelligentsia, etc.
GD Monarchy - a national idea. It can’t rely on some specific classes and social groups. One major advantage of the legitimate hereditary monarchy is that in this system, the head of state is not obliged to his authority to anyone but God. And therefore it can be a true arbiter, the Father of the nation, for whom all the members of his family are precious. The monarchy must have support at all levels of society. Of course, the state is unthinkable without a hierarchical structure. Another thing is that the ruling class should be continuously updated with the best representatives of all social strata and groups. And these very strata and groups should be allowed to occupy its worthy place in a legal state and civil society, possessing all the necessary rights and responsibilities.
Tomorrow. Your ancestors - the tsars and emperors. Do you feel any particular, involvement in the history of your family, figuratively speaking: Do you have dreams you about dynasty’ past?
GD Dreams ... not dream, but the involvement, of course, I feel like probably everyone feels a connection with their ancestors. Even if he does not think there is, after all, it is genetics. Our ancestors have left this world, but some small part of them continues to live in us, to influence our character, temperament, and, consequently, our actions. The feeling of belonging to the family inspires self-discipline. We must try to behave so as not to disgrace our ancestors and our descendants to not be ashamed of us.
Tomorrow. Is the role of the House Heir the burden to you, does you status bother you in your life?
GD Yeah ... A negative answer to your question would imply frivolity, and the positive - excessive pride. In fact, any position dealing with people trust to you and their hopes is a difficult burden. But at the same time, it inspires and allows you to survive in difficult life situations. I can’t say that my situation bothers me. But I understand that this is a big responsibility. I have the right to privacy, especially because now I have no public duties. But I still can’t do much of what any other individuals could do. My mother and grandparents raising me put in my mind kind of traffic light. If there is even a thought: "Why me, in the end, should do or not do so-and-so?" Then suddenly red light lit. Sometimes it's a human being annoyed that maybe missed some opportunities, but then, over time and common sense, I am convinced that self-restraint in most cases was correct and useful. God brought our world so that everything in life is balanced, so to complain about the fate of never worth it.
Tomorrow. Do you have any preferences in Russian history, favorite heroes or anti-heroes?
GD Calm and confident style of the reign of Alexander III is close to me. During his reign Russia was a real superpower, whose power was based not on fear and dislike, but in sincere respect. When he died, even geopolitical enemies of our country paid tribute to him, because he was the guardian of international equilibrium. I think undeservedly overlooked John III, who in 1480 was destined to a peaceful end of foreign domination. And in fact he is the father of the sovereignty of our country. Such rulers as John III, maybe not famous for great battles and grandiose reforms, but really they have done more for the country than many brilliant rulers. In general, the main hero of Russian history, of course, is our people. They are often sacrificed for the sake of supposed "public interest". But what are these interests and whose are they, if for the sake of them millions of people being sacrificed? The true heroes are not those who spectacularly won the struggle for power, to bump off their fellow citizens, without counting, but those who have had successes, saving people lives. And when it really is a threat to national existence, our nation does not need to be convinced to make sacrifices. An example of this - all the wars from the campaigns of Oleg and Svyatoslav to the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.
Interview by Andrey Smirnov and Andrey Fefelov
According to opinion polls, about 20% of the citizens of modern Russia are ready to support the revival of the monarchy. It is possible however, that each of the respondents understood monarchy as something of their own. The spread of opinion in this matter is extremely wide. For some preferred a constitutional monarchy, it is decorative: as a kind of symbol that can stabilize the political life in the country and to emphasize the historical continuity of epochs. Others, conversely, looking forward to the autocratic system await full power of Caesar, which will provide the necessary centralization of power, clean Augean stables "democracy", restore the international status of Russia, arranged inside the country a semblance of the kingdom of justice.
I remember, the hero of the novel by Mikhail Bulgakov, watching crimes of bandits during the civil war, and cried in their hearts: "I am - a monarchist by conviction. But at the moment the Bolsheviks are required ..." Now you can hear something else: "I am - a socialist by conviction, but without the wise and strong king of Russia did not get out of the quagmire ... "
Editor of portal Pravaya.ru, historian Alexander Eliseev wrote once in his article "The Tsar and the Soviets!" ("Tomorrow" № 47, 2007) wrote this: "... autocracy and self-government - this is the formula of the dialectical synthesis, through which you can restore the age-old Russian rule at the next level."
Today's monarchist movement is contradictory and heterogeneous. It is the projection of the mysteries and paradoxes of denial, of what happened in March 1917. The religious meaning of the termination and restoration of the monarchy in Russia is obvious to so many Orthodox believers, though not universally accepted.
Ideological, spiritual and political nuances of monarchical consciousness superimposed on the unresolved questions about a possible way to establish a monarchy in Russia.
Modern Russia's monarchists are divided into two main groups: the so-called "Cathedral Folk" and "Legitimists." That is, the supporters of the election at the Council a new tsar, unrelated to any dynastic preferences, and supporters of the Romanov dynasty.
The first group in the early 90-ies took shape as a very powerful movement, supporting the new All-Russia Convention (Zemsky Sobor), which should elect the next tsar. Main of this movement was a monarchist and populist Vyacheslav Klykov. He urged the arrival of the new ruling dynasty, namely -the descendants of Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov. Public euphoria ended after Gaidar's reforms and shootings in 1993 and the activities of the cathedral monarchists came to nothing.
Regarding "Legitimists", here we see several trends, targeting various competing branches of the Romanov dynasty, whose representatives were born and live outside Russia." But today, the European monarchs and representatives of the ruling houses, who lost their thrones, recognize the inheritance right only Kirillovichi, which is well known and we have.
The heir to the throne of Russia, son of Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, and Prince Franz-Wilhelm of Prussia Hohenzollern, the Grand Duke George of Russia - the youngest of Kirillovich. He was born in 1981 in Madrid. From his father side, he is the great grandson of german Emperor Wilhelm II, from his mother – great-great-great grandson of Russian Emperor Alexander II. Native language of George - French, although he readily speaks and reads Spanish, English and Russian.
Prince George for their incomplete thirty years had to learn in Oxford, to work in the European Parliament, and then the agency of the European Commission on Nuclear Safety in Luxembourg. Since 2008 he works as Advisor to CEO, Norilsk Nickel, Russia, introducing this corporation in the Nickel Institute (Brussels, Belgium).
Grand Duke George has kindly agreed to talk with representatives of the newspaper “Tomorrow". Personality and perceptions of the Romanov heir, of course, will be of interest to most of our readers.
Tomorrow. Your Highness, being heir to the Imperial House, do you see yourself as a potential monarch?
Grand Duke Georgy Mikhailovich. Status of Imperial House head, which is now my mother, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna and her heir, of course, contains within itself the possibility sometime in the future to lead not only the dynasty, but also country. Of course, this can only happen if Russian people would again support the monarchical principle. If the day will come when I called to this duty, I do not turn from it. But in the present, as all the sovereigns of our home in exile: My great-grandfather, grandfather and my mother - I try to live according to the well-known principle of "Do what you must, and whether that will happen." It would be foolish to sit and dream: "And what will I do if I will ascend to the throne? I try to be useful to my Motherland in my today’s position, helping my mother in her duty and accumulating professional experience and knowledge that will be useful in any case.
Tomorrow. How, in your opinion, monarchist idea could be implemented in contemporary situation?
GD It is necessary freely expressed will of a nation-wide for the monarchy’ restoration. I'm sure if people will get honest and objective information, they will make the right conclusions and choose one that fits its genuine national interests. History shows that people mechanical majority often make mistakes. But if people feel not like "mass" and "population", but as individuals, united by common values, respect of their ancestors and themselves and willing that following generations will respect them - then people would not make mistakes. Revival of the monarchy after the Troubles of XVII century, 400 years since the end of which we will celebrate soon, clearly illustrates my words.
Tomorrow. Could the Russian monarchy be restored not as the Empire, but in the frames of the local "national state"?
GD In the foreseeable future, I do not see any prerequisites that Russia has lost its multinational character, regardless of type of its political state. But if you talk in theory ... This Empire - this is not a system of oppression of one nation by the others, but the family of fraternal peoples, united by common goals and interests, which keep the unity in diversity. Russia had originally been a multinational state and throughout its history has sought to integrate people into a single empire. But along with this, in our past there were periods when dominated by centrifugal forces. In its time to revive a central state was able to Muscovy, initially very small and even smaller than that in the impact of other similar "local national states." The reason for this, in my opinion, lies in the fact that Muscovy, on the one hand, managed to defend the hard monarchical principle, and on the other - their policy was sufficiently flexible and modern. Yes, they were able to compromise, and without betraying the principal and over several generations strategically preparing the union and the liberation of their country. Nowadays, Russia, indeed, because of the severe consequences of several revolutions of the twentieth century, thrown far back. But, I repeat, I am confident that before the "local national state" we do not ever sunk. On the contrary, I believe that Russia has a chance not only to maintain its current territorial integrity, but also attract the fraternal peoples of the former Russia Empire by the updated forms of integration. Perfectly aware that it will not pre-revolutionary Empire and the Soviet Union. However, an appeal to the best examples from the past will enable us to preserve, at least, a single cultural space.
Tomorrow. Many of the current conservative models start with the obligatory defamation of the Soviet period. How do you see the restoration of the monarchy in Russia? Political revenge or a kind of vanguard project for the Russian future? Restoration or attempt to unite the nation with consideration of the Soviet experience?
GD Very serious question. Restoration of the monarchy in any case can’t be revenge. Emperor Nicholas II abdicated it in the hope of reconciling and preventing fratricide. Imperial House of Russia did not participate in the Civil War, when it still broke. We are not "red" and not "white", and we can’t have revenge sentiments. Revolution is a terrible national tragedy. Our Dynasty greatly suffered from it. But our entire nation suffered a lot, including the direct creators and participants of the revolution from both sides. If our thoughts and desires towards the future, we must stop to reopen old wounds and remember each other offenses. My mother always called compatriots seek not what divides but what unites all of us. If we want to return Russia to its place in the world, we should not continue to blame each other, and learn to forgive and ask forgiveness. And to go forward with goodwill and solidarity, not with hatred and revenge.
Monarchy - is the idea of true national unity. Being a legitimate and hereditary, that is continuous in historical time, it brings together the country's citizens, not only for the sake of some short-term goals, but for centuries-old traditions in the name of the present and for the future. The monarchy is obliged to take into account any experience - both positive and negative. We should not forget anything to avoid a repetition of evil. Need to give moral and legal appraisal of the past. For example, nothing can justify the violent nature of the God-fighting totalitarian regimes and its class or racial genocide, when millions of people were wiped out for what they could not change under any circumstances - for their national or social origin. But in condemning the crimes and errors, with the dirty water does not have to splash out a child. There were a lot of bright and heroic in our people life in the Soviet period. My great-grandfather Emperor Kirill and my grandfather, Emperor Vladimir Kirillovich always called for a clear distinction between the godless and inhuman Marxist-Leninist ideology and the creation of the national spirit, which breaks all the shackles.
Imperial House of Russia believes that the monarchy - is a modern and progressive system of government, which has a future. It is able to synthesize the positive experiences of all periods of our history, including the Soviet one. Even my great-grandfather in one of his hits made a very correct idea: "No need to destroy any facilities, life caused, but we need to turn away from those who desecrate the human soul." I fully share this view. That is my position.
Tomorrow. Monarchic project must necessarily rely on a layer of "sovereign people". From which strata of society, in your opinion, they should come? The oligarchs, the army, the intelligentsia, etc.
GD Monarchy - a national idea. It can’t rely on some specific classes and social groups. One major advantage of the legitimate hereditary monarchy is that in this system, the head of state is not obliged to his authority to anyone but God. And therefore it can be a true arbiter, the Father of the nation, for whom all the members of his family are precious. The monarchy must have support at all levels of society. Of course, the state is unthinkable without a hierarchical structure. Another thing is that the ruling class should be continuously updated with the best representatives of all social strata and groups. And these very strata and groups should be allowed to occupy its worthy place in a legal state and civil society, possessing all the necessary rights and responsibilities.
Tomorrow. Your ancestors - the tsars and emperors. Do you feel any particular, involvement in the history of your family, figuratively speaking: Do you have dreams you about dynasty’ past?
GD Dreams ... not dream, but the involvement, of course, I feel like probably everyone feels a connection with their ancestors. Even if he does not think there is, after all, it is genetics. Our ancestors have left this world, but some small part of them continues to live in us, to influence our character, temperament, and, consequently, our actions. The feeling of belonging to the family inspires self-discipline. We must try to behave so as not to disgrace our ancestors and our descendants to not be ashamed of us.
Tomorrow. Is the role of the House Heir the burden to you, does you status bother you in your life?
GD Yeah ... A negative answer to your question would imply frivolity, and the positive - excessive pride. In fact, any position dealing with people trust to you and their hopes is a difficult burden. But at the same time, it inspires and allows you to survive in difficult life situations. I can’t say that my situation bothers me. But I understand that this is a big responsibility. I have the right to privacy, especially because now I have no public duties. But I still can’t do much of what any other individuals could do. My mother and grandparents raising me put in my mind kind of traffic light. If there is even a thought: "Why me, in the end, should do or not do so-and-so?" Then suddenly red light lit. Sometimes it's a human being annoyed that maybe missed some opportunities, but then, over time and common sense, I am convinced that self-restraint in most cases was correct and useful. God brought our world so that everything in life is balanced, so to complain about the fate of never worth it.
Tomorrow. Do you have any preferences in Russian history, favorite heroes or anti-heroes?
GD Calm and confident style of the reign of Alexander III is close to me. During his reign Russia was a real superpower, whose power was based not on fear and dislike, but in sincere respect. When he died, even geopolitical enemies of our country paid tribute to him, because he was the guardian of international equilibrium. I think undeservedly overlooked John III, who in 1480 was destined to a peaceful end of foreign domination. And in fact he is the father of the sovereignty of our country. Such rulers as John III, maybe not famous for great battles and grandiose reforms, but really they have done more for the country than many brilliant rulers. In general, the main hero of Russian history, of course, is our people. They are often sacrificed for the sake of supposed "public interest". But what are these interests and whose are they, if for the sake of them millions of people being sacrificed? The true heroes are not those who spectacularly won the struggle for power, to bump off their fellow citizens, without counting, but those who have had successes, saving people lives. And when it really is a threat to national existence, our nation does not need to be convinced to make sacrifices. An example of this - all the wars from the campaigns of Oleg and Svyatoslav to the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.
Interview by Andrey Smirnov and Andrey Fefelov
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Hiding behind the Bible won't help
Okay, so I have my beliefs. I have my faith. I keep them tucked away and pull them out and play them when necessary.
Much to the Baptists' dismay, I am not a "preach until you're blue in the face in order to convert them" person. If someone asks, sure, I'll share ... but not until then. I don't believe in forcing my beliefs and religion.
And I sure as hell don't believe in quoting the Bible in order to justify asinine thoughts and ideas. I always hated the Mormon commercial on TV back in the day that showed an open Bible and two passages were highlighted ... but read as if they were one, to make it sound like the Bible supported the crazy dude who found the golden tablets behind a rock. Oh, but see, that's not how it really worked. There was text in between those two passages that was eliminated for these purposes... it's like qualitative research data, you can twist it to make it say whatever you want. (But my gripe about Dr. Lindloff and his crazy research is a whole separate tirade indeed.)
So, to start the day, I see a link on my friend's Facebook page to a story, and his comment to accompany the story is simple, "Asshole." I don't think that begins to describe the dude. The long and the short is that this bastage from Virginia believes that children with disabilities are God's way to punish people who have had abortions - because, apparently, it's widely known that the first-born is sacred and if you harm that first-born in anyway, then you will be punished with a child who has special needs the next time you decide to screw around without protection.
Now, in all my years of going to church ... in all my years of listening to boring sermons that, admittedly, went in one ear and out the other most Sundays ... in all my years of randomly picking up the Bible and reading a verse or two when the mood struck, NEVER have I ever seen anything about God punishing people by burdening them with a child who has special needs. I mean, maybe I missed it, but I always thought God punished us by sending us to burn in Hell ... and maybe a cruel dose of irony now and then, but really? This guy believes this?
So, of course, it does beg the question ... are all special needs children born to parents who aborted what would have been their first-born? What if a woman aborted a child, but it was not her first-born - is she still to be punished with a special needs child? Ohhhh, by this douchbag's rationale, obviously Sarah Palin must have had an abortion early on and Trig is her punishment. (Don't you think what she does to herself every time she opens her mouth as of late is punishment enough?)
Okay, so enough of that guy, because if I go on too much more about that, my head just might explode.
So, that's open-mouth-insert-foot-but-justify-with-Bible moment of the day, act one. Brief intermission and my internet surfing lands me on this gem:
Much to the Baptists' dismay, I am not a "preach until you're blue in the face in order to convert them" person. If someone asks, sure, I'll share ... but not until then. I don't believe in forcing my beliefs and religion.
And I sure as hell don't believe in quoting the Bible in order to justify asinine thoughts and ideas. I always hated the Mormon commercial on TV back in the day that showed an open Bible and two passages were highlighted ... but read as if they were one, to make it sound like the Bible supported the crazy dude who found the golden tablets behind a rock. Oh, but see, that's not how it really worked. There was text in between those two passages that was eliminated for these purposes... it's like qualitative research data, you can twist it to make it say whatever you want. (But my gripe about Dr. Lindloff and his crazy research is a whole separate tirade indeed.)
So, to start the day, I see a link on my friend's Facebook page to a story, and his comment to accompany the story is simple, "Asshole." I don't think that begins to describe the dude. The long and the short is that this bastage from Virginia believes that children with disabilities are God's way to punish people who have had abortions - because, apparently, it's widely known that the first-born is sacred and if you harm that first-born in anyway, then you will be punished with a child who has special needs the next time you decide to screw around without protection.
Now, in all my years of going to church ... in all my years of listening to boring sermons that, admittedly, went in one ear and out the other most Sundays ... in all my years of randomly picking up the Bible and reading a verse or two when the mood struck, NEVER have I ever seen anything about God punishing people by burdening them with a child who has special needs. I mean, maybe I missed it, but I always thought God punished us by sending us to burn in Hell ... and maybe a cruel dose of irony now and then, but really? This guy believes this?
So, of course, it does beg the question ... are all special needs children born to parents who aborted what would have been their first-born? What if a woman aborted a child, but it was not her first-born - is she still to be punished with a special needs child? Ohhhh, by this douchbag's rationale, obviously Sarah Palin must have had an abortion early on and Trig is her punishment. (Don't you think what she does to herself every time she opens her mouth as of late is punishment enough?)
Okay, so enough of that guy, because if I go on too much more about that, my head just might explode.
So, that's open-mouth-insert-foot-but-justify-with-Bible moment of the day, act one. Brief intermission and my internet surfing lands me on this gem:
“The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Leviticus it says, ‘If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.’ The Bible is pretty black and white,” Ashley told Pop Tarts.
“I feel like God himself created mankind and he loves everyone, and he has the best for everyone. If he says that having sex with someone of your same gender is going to bring death upon you, that’s a pretty stern warning, and he knows more than we do about life.”
Okay, look, I know the Bible does say horrible things about the gays. It does. But the Bible also says that God loves everyone ... and the only true sin is not believing in him, and those who don't are the ones who will burn in hell. I don't really think the lyrics of "Jesus Loves Me This I Know" go like this:
Jesus loves me this I know,
For the Bible tells me so.
Little ones to him belong,
Unless they're gay, that is so wrong.
For the Bible tells me so.
Little ones to him belong,
Unless they're gay, that is so wrong.
But you know, I could be wrong. I don't go to church a whole lot these days. What about "Jesus Loves the Little Children"?
Jesus loves the little children,
All the children of the world.
Red and yellow, black and white
They are precious in his sight (unless they are gay)
Jesus loves the little children of the world
All the children of the world.
Red and yellow, black and white
They are precious in his sight (unless they are gay)
Jesus loves the little children of the world
Alright, I'm getting off-topic by re-writing VBS classics. My point is simply this: taking the Bible out of context to promote your own agenda, however prejudice it may be, is not the way to go. Sure the Bible lays down the law on a lot of things (after all, it's wrong to kill and covet thy neighbor's wife), but it also has stories of love, compassion and acceptance.
And here's a SHOCKER ... Jesus, the Messiah, came to die for your sins (including opening your big mouth you dumbass) and wipe your slate clean. This means that if homosexuality is indeed a sin (which it probably is because, well, think about how the "seven deadly sins" put a cabash on everything), Jesus' death on the cross wiped that sin clean for them. Yay for Jesus.
So, little genius child, Miss Beverly Hills (who, ironically enough, the city of Beverly Hills does not acknowledge in the least), they are not going to burn in hell because they love someone of the same sex. You have no place to damn them to hell for who they love. Period. END OF STORY. Furthermore, if having gay sex will bring death upon them, I'm sure a lot of them will say "bring it" because they will go to Heaven and be in a much better place, one that doesn't have people like Lauren Ashley in it.
Now ... you are sitting here asking yourself that if I'm a little church girl like I seem to imply, aren't I a homophobe too? Nope. There was a point in my life when I would actually have admitted that. But that was when I had a much more narrow view of things. Now I've come to accept that you are who you are, and I will be damned if anyone has the right to control who you love. I am straight, but that doesn't mean it's the only option out there. I mean, shoot, I like milk chocolate, but that doesn't mean there aren't other flavors of chocolate out there that other people enjoy. I believe that in the end, EVERYONE will have to answer to their maker (whoever they believe it to be), and that's who gets to do the final judging. Not me. Not Miss Beverly Hills. Not some douchebag from Virginia. Believe me, no amount of shielding themselves with the Bible will protect them when they come face-to-face with their God. (What about the Athiests. I don't know. Don't make me think that hard, it's almost two in the morning for God's sake.)
Am I perfect? Not on your life. Am I casting stones. Sure I am. Did I whip out my faith and share without being asked (contrary to what I said at the beginning)? But it's my blog and I'm entitled to do it (eh, no one reads it anyway). The Bible grants me a First Amendment right to the freedom of speech ... oh, wait a minute .... no, that's something else entirely. :)
Life Drawing again!!!
I’ve finally managed to sort out a life drawing class again, so guess where I spent the evening. It was a bit will I/won’t I due to a parent teacher meeting but I managed to get there. First sketch was so-so but the second looks much better, after an awful lot of correcting!!! I didn’t finish as much as I’d like as I started playing with water. The initial sketching was done using watercolour pencils so the water added a nice painty dimension. The shading isn’t finished but I like the effects so far. The question is whether I continue to work up the original or use it for other works? I’m not sure I’m happy with it enough to post it, maybe when it’s worked up!!!!
I’ve spent most of the day painting, the watercolour is coming on nicely, although I’m not finished yet.
I’ve even managed some sketching, a few figures swimming at the pool and a style – so exciting!!!!
I’ve spent most of the day painting, the watercolour is coming on nicely, although I’m not finished yet.
I’ve even managed some sketching, a few figures swimming at the pool and a style – so exciting!!!!
The Loud Debunker-Not
Calling Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth "The Quiet Juggernaut," James B. of the Screw Loose Change blog states:
And having an article published about their group in The Washington Times is a big deal!
SpookyPunkos comment - March 4, 2010:
James B's position is obviously a poor attempt to belittle this important story. I would remind the debunkers that although the Washington Times printed this 911 story first, heaps of other papers have taken up the issue when they covered the Washington Times article.
The other papers didn't have to write their own substantial copy, they just repeated what was already there, largely without ridiculing it !
If the 911 story was so bad why did other papers take it up ? Plus why did they not wholesale deride the copy when they presented it ?
I just googled the story and there was a lot of good coverage:
http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIC_enAU311AU311&q=Washington+Times+911+story
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGIC_enAU311AU311&q=Washington+Times+911+story&start=10&sa=N
On February 25, the Swiss paper The Daily Bell also published an original article inspired by the Washinton Times piece.
They state:
Related Info:
AE911Truth.org Press Conference Video and Media Coverage
AE911Truth held their series of 47 press conferences yesterday, but apparently the press failed to show up. From searching Google news it appears they actually managed to make it into 1 actual newspaper...They also got some TV coverage James.
And having an article published about their group in The Washington Times is a big deal!
SpookyPunkos comment - March 4, 2010:
James B's position is obviously a poor attempt to belittle this important story. I would remind the debunkers that although the Washington Times printed this 911 story first, heaps of other papers have taken up the issue when they covered the Washington Times article.
The other papers didn't have to write their own substantial copy, they just repeated what was already there, largely without ridiculing it !
If the 911 story was so bad why did other papers take it up ? Plus why did they not wholesale deride the copy when they presented it ?
I just googled the story and there was a lot of good coverage:
http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIC_enAU311AU311&q=Washington+Times+911+story
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGIC_enAU311AU311&q=Washington+Times+911+story&start=10&sa=N
On February 25, the Swiss paper The Daily Bell also published an original article inspired by the Washinton Times piece.
They state:
The Washington Times, a mainstream, beltway newspaper, is seemingly opening up the issue again. There was no need to cover yet another 'trufers' story and yet the Times has done so - to the astonishment of the alternative blogosphere. We think, not to make a pun, that this is in fact a sign of the times. The pressure to understand what really happened on 9/11 simply won't go away. It is all over the 'Net and is in fact gaining momentum in our opinion.Concluding:
Yesterday, the Washington Times covered an important 9/11 story once again. It was supposed to be dead by now. As dead as Jack Kennedy. Yet articles and research regarding 9/11 are posted to the Internet every day. They are like drops of water that erode the hard shell of the established government narrative.Those Debunkers will say anything to water down or whitewash any significant 911 truth developments. It's very transparent disinfo tactics considering their position juxtaposed to reality ...
Related Info:
AE911Truth.org Press Conference Video and Media Coverage
No matter what they tell us ,
No matter what they do .
No matter what they teach us .
What we believe is true .
*************
I'm deeply sorry for the lack of update . I simply do not have the time as the month of February has been the month of joy and work .
When I said joy , I meant the joy we get celebrating Chinese New Year . Work , as in the things we need to do during Chinese New Year to as well as the work done in school .
It's not easy , I tell ya' that .
Anyways , here are some pictures I took during the Chinese New Year . Nothing much , just to fill you guys in on the havoc created and faced during the most important time of the month .
It's really ironic by the fact that this is Adrian's open house and yet , NO pictures of the man himself .
Odd .
When I said joy , I meant the joy we get celebrating Chinese New Year . Work , as in the things we need to do during Chinese New Year to as well as the work done in school .
It's not easy , I tell ya' that .
Anyways , here are some pictures I took during the Chinese New Year . Nothing much , just to fill you guys in on the havoc created and faced during the most important time of the month .
At Adrian's open house .
It's really ironic by the fact that this is Adrian's open house and yet , NO pictures of the man himself .
Odd .
At my open house .
Well . These were some of the pictures I managed to take . I WOULD upload them all but I rather keep it short and simple . I'm not like those kinda people who upload like 30 pictures at one go and blind their fellow readers to death by their camwhorring pictures .
Anyways . Due to the economic crisis , this year's amount of money collected wasn't that great . As a matter of fact , it wasn't good at all .
It was bad . Terrible . Awful . Unlike any other year I've experienced .
But still , I am grateful for all the good things that has happened to me so far . Let's not get greedy , shall we ?
So I guess this year's Chinese New Year post ends here . With lots of love and prosperity to go around , I bid you all a good day .
Look out for the next post .
Something out of this world has happened in my house ...
Signing off ,
- Jaden -
Anyways . Due to the economic crisis , this year's amount of money collected wasn't that great . As a matter of fact , it wasn't good at all .
It was bad . Terrible . Awful . Unlike any other year I've experienced .
But still , I am grateful for all the good things that has happened to me so far . Let's not get greedy , shall we ?
So I guess this year's Chinese New Year post ends here . With lots of love and prosperity to go around , I bid you all a good day .
Look out for the next post .
Something out of this world has happened in my house ...
Signing off ,
- Jaden -
La faute a Voltaire!
Yes blame it all on him. Do it. It's his fault. I am feeling not so well. I feel like beaten up. There is something coming and I do not know what. My horoscope says, that I am in a thoughtful mood today. Aparently, this sucks! I'd rather switch the constant brainstorm off and smile a bit more.
I watched a French movie yesterday. The international title of it : " It's Voltaire's fault" ( orig. La faute a Voltaire). A Fantastic, beautiful movie. In every aspect. I mostly liked the brilliant cast. This kind of movies are the reason why I prefer the good old French cinema.
Let me share an older review from the New York Times :
MOVIE REVIEW
La Faute a Voltaire (2000)
FILM FESTIVAL REVIEW; Égalité Is Not Always for Everyone
''They think they invented liberty,'' says one uncle with more than a hint of sarcasm. ''They love human rights.''
Well, they do and they don't. After lying his way through the interview (during which he sits under a poster printed with the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man), Jallel is given a temporary visa and finds his way to a homeless shelter. And as Abdel Kechiche's tender film follows Jallel through his daily life in Paris, it expresses its own quiet commitment to the protection of individual dignity and human fraternity.
This is not in the sociological sense a movie about the condition of immigrants in France, but something much more strange and valuable. It's not about sociology but about life, more concerned with telling a story than making a point. There is a point, though, which is that political ideals are embodied not by the impersonal and bureaucratic state (which turns them into rules and procedures), but by people. The film ends with a moment of perfunctory legal cruelty that stands in stark contrast to the warm sense of comradeship that has come before.
Jallel (Sami Bouajila) has a handsome sensitive face and a gentle unassuming manner that draws people to him. At the shelter he falls in with a genial supportive band of outsiders led by a garrulous Breton named Franck (Bruno Lochet).
And one night at a cafe he meets Nassera (Aure Atika), a half-Tunisian waitress and single mother. Their volatile relationship dominates the first half of the film, which ends with Jallel's confinement in a mental hospital.
There he meets Lucie (Elodie Bouchez), who trades sexual favors with the other patients for small sums of money, more out of compulsion than the need for money. Her fragility awakens a protective impulse in Jallel, and once they're discharged from the hospital, she clings to him, sometimes annoying his friends from the shelter.
''La Faute à Voltaire,'' which will be shown tonight and tomorrow in the New Directors New Films festival, is enriched by Mr. Kechiche's discreet and sensitive regard for the emotions of his characters and by the unaffected naturalism of the cast.
The film feels a little too long, and in the second half Jallel's genuine chivalry blurs some of the harder, more interesting edges of his personality. But Mr. Kechiche has a fine and unusual instinct for ordinary beauty, and he introduces us to people we are sorry to leave behind
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
1000 "Moonbat Crazy" Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth
By Spookypunkos
Right now there's more than 1000 crazy, but nevertheless credentialed, architects and engineers who have signed up with the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth group. These people are obviously ALL deluded. I mean they madly point to ridiculous evidence such as the laws of physics, peer reviewed papers and the obvious flaws in the official account of the World Trade Centre destruction to back their arguments. Crazy.
I'm sure everything these experts claim is completely false. Structural engineers, ex-NASA engineers, professors and experienced architects obviously don't understand the case being made by the official NIST investigation. Their detailed claims of scientific fraud, enacted on behalf of corrupt elements within the US Government, must obviously be groundless. Nothing to see here, move along ...
Of course the public, including many very intelligent people, have correctly ASSUMED that they know all they need to know about 911. No fact checking is required. I'm sure they're right- that accepting the official story at face value, while overlooking the controversy and the details of the attacks (especially ignoring the informed criticisms of more than a thousand engineering and building professionals), is the most logical position to take.
After all, we MUST accept the War on Terror. No one would take advantage of the tensions between the West and Islam to stage an "impossible" false attack in 2001. That'd be tin-foil hat wearing crazy ! Scientific evidence of foul play be damned !!
Let's look forward to endless war against those irrational fundamentalists. We'll gladly sacrifice everything so that the terrorists won't get us "again." There is no alternative !
Please, no one look into the details here. There is no deception. We are not living a lie. Thousands have not died for nothing. Exposing the truth about 911 is NOT the most important thing you can do !
Here is something else not worthy to consider: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth interviewed in the mainstream media - Victoria, BC
Related Info:
1,000 Architectural and Engineering Professionals Chasing a Moving Goalpost
The Loud Debunker-Not
Right now there's more than 1000 crazy, but nevertheless credentialed, architects and engineers who have signed up with the Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth group. These people are obviously ALL deluded. I mean they madly point to ridiculous evidence such as the laws of physics, peer reviewed papers and the obvious flaws in the official account of the World Trade Centre destruction to back their arguments. Crazy.
I'm sure everything these experts claim is completely false. Structural engineers, ex-NASA engineers, professors and experienced architects obviously don't understand the case being made by the official NIST investigation. Their detailed claims of scientific fraud, enacted on behalf of corrupt elements within the US Government, must obviously be groundless. Nothing to see here, move along ...
Of course the public, including many very intelligent people, have correctly ASSUMED that they know all they need to know about 911. No fact checking is required. I'm sure they're right- that accepting the official story at face value, while overlooking the controversy and the details of the attacks (especially ignoring the informed criticisms of more than a thousand engineering and building professionals), is the most logical position to take.
After all, we MUST accept the War on Terror. No one would take advantage of the tensions between the West and Islam to stage an "impossible" false attack in 2001. That'd be tin-foil hat wearing crazy ! Scientific evidence of foul play be damned !!
Let's look forward to endless war against those irrational fundamentalists. We'll gladly sacrifice everything so that the terrorists won't get us "again." There is no alternative !
Please, no one look into the details here. There is no deception. We are not living a lie. Thousands have not died for nothing. Exposing the truth about 911 is NOT the most important thing you can do !
Here is something else not worthy to consider: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth interviewed in the mainstream media - Victoria, BC
Related Info:
1,000 Architectural and Engineering Professionals Chasing a Moving Goalpost
The Loud Debunker-Not
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
