To the BBC I suppose but this is to criticise and question a common myth often perpetuated as fact regarding 'English' conversion to Christianity in the years after the Romans departed.

Specifically the BBC's programme about the Staffordshire Hoard suggested England at the time was strongly pagan with the leaders of the various 'Anglo-Saxon' kingdoms being gradually 'converted to Christianity' which 'brought writing and laws'. Again, specifically the hypothesis that the hoard's existence suggested conflict between possibly pagan Mercia and a neighbouring Christian faction, possibly one of the Welsh kingdoms.

But there are two narratives going on here. The first describes how the Roman Empire, which included much of Britain, became officially Christian. Further, the records of the Roman Church describe how a Saint Germanus was sent here after or during the end of the Roman period in Britain to preach against the teachings of a monk known as Pelagius. The second describes how when the Romans left, the Britons forgot how to speak [and presumably read!] Latin and adopted the Nordic/Germanic religion of the incoming Anglo-Saxons.

I think the question is not when Christianity was introduced to these islands but when Christianity was accepted among the common people and I think in some sense this was a lot more recent and probably during the Reformation and the religious wars in Europe. Yet in the same sense, strictly speaking Biblical Law was practiced by the Anglo-Saxons before the reign of Alfred.

We know from records that the Anglo-Saxons practices blood feuds. We also know that fugitives where entitled to sanctuary in churches in the later medieval period. These two 'laws' are mentioned in the Bible. The Bible states that if an individual commits murder a member of the victims family is entitled to murder the murderer. But a person who commits murder is also entitled to sanctuary.More importanly, the duty or entitlement of a family member to excact lethal revenge for murder would be the logical starting point for any blood feud.

So, we have a Biblical/Christian justification for common practices during the Dark Ages and yet we are told no-one could read or speak Latin because everyone had forgotten to do so! Also, we are again lead to believe that the Romano-Brits forgot how to speak Latin (what evidence is there that they ever did?) and adopted the langauge of/were ethnically cleansed by the incoming Anglo-Saxons. Also we have the idea that the Romano-Brits also forgot their religion and adopted a new one and yet the teachings of Pelagius were considered so dangerous that the Roman Church felt in had to send an important religous figure to combat this heresy.

There are many myths and possible false narratives about the Dark Ages. It has even been suggested that the events between c.600 and c.900 CE never actually happened, that 300 years of history were effectively filled in or invented. But there is an 'invented' history when we are taking the Northumbrian's and the East Angle's word that they ethnically cleansed the East Britons and set up new kingdoms after the Romans departed. Ethnic cleansing and conquest could explain why Christianity was abandoned but do we really have to belive the Britons forgot Latin and learned Old English instead?

What if the Angles and Saxons, if they did come in large numbers, came with the Romans, possibly as mercenaries or auxilliaries during the 1st century and/or later in the 4ths century as confederati-bringing foreigers onto Roman soil in return for military service/protecting the borders? There is some evidence for this in English-sounding place names that date from before the Saxon period. There are no mass graves from the 5th century but the population of Briton before, during and after the Roman period dropped from four to two million,probably partly due to the Roman occupation, Britons being relocated elsewhere for military service or slave labour.

What really may be going on here is: what if the Staffordshire Hoard represents a conflict, or what would today probably be regarded as a civil war, between followers of Pelagius [who preached against the concepts of Original Sin and predestination] and those who could be regarded as 'Predestinationists'. Furthermore, what if historians such as Bede created a 'false narrative' of conquest and conversion to legitimise the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms on the east coast of England.

HI just watched sort of the beginning of 'Coppers' on Channel Four.

Not impressed by the attitude. Specifically, they arrested sort of a toothless alcoholic who swore at them. More specifically the almost abuse the sort of poor man got from the Duty Sergeant when he was brought in.

Did I say he was drunk and had no teeth and was rightly/wrongly bit peeved and defensive for being arrested basically for swearing and being drunk?

He was asked his name which he gave and I could quite clearly hear it watching on the telly as Drain (D.R.A.I.N), at which he was told to repeat his name. He repeated his name and then had to spell it because the DS told him he was mumbling. He was drunk, had no teeth, of course he could hardly talk 'proper' but he had an excuse cos did I say he had lost all his teeth! I mean basically the police think they can just go round arresting people for being stupid!

The alcoholic was involved in an altercation over a cheese sandwich or pasty. OK some people do argue over the stupidest things and the argument was over who's turn it was to have a bite . People don't just wake up in the morning and say "I know I'll turn into a derelict that'll be fun now won't it?". They have problems and their alcoholism ecacerbates those problems. And people have arguments over money. And yes people are stupid at times but they get defensive also: people swear at me, should I arrest them as well which is basically kidnapping? The idea is preposterous and would get me beaten up for no real reason and no benefit to anybody. Which brings me to Iraq Ha ha because: guess what is the same argument.

Whatever you do to people, rightly or wrongly they will defend themselves. Of course that doesn't mean they have the right to, it's just natural cause and effect.But if people are repeatedly stupid then maybe the need help or regular/irregular supervision. Or rehab. Or, let em calm down and sober up and THEN try asking them their name!! I see parents swearing at their children. I often wonder if I should intervene. Ideally people shouldn't be afraid to approach people calmly and I guess try to reason with them. Did I say people get defensive? Yes so intervention should only be used as extreme last resort not because you can iraqiransyriapalestinesudan .Maybe I should kidnap the child or kill the parent because that is what intervention means: We have the right to kill, you barely have the right to live.

George Bush and the Police are like the Vorlons: You'll die when we tell you to die

Hi, thought I'd quote PNAC:

PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan countered such criticism in his statement during a debate on whether or not "The United States Is, and Should Be, an Empire":

"There is a vital distinction between being powerful--even most powerful in the world--and being an empire. Economic expansion does not equal imperialism, and there is no such thing as "cultural imperialism". If America is an empire, then why was it unable to mobilize its subjects to support the war against Saddam Hussein? America is not an empire, and its power stems from voluntary associations and alliances. American hegemony is relatively well accepted because people all over the world know that U.S. forces will eventually withdraw from the occupied territories. The effect of declaring that the United States is an empire would not only be factually wrong, but strategically catastrophic. Contrary to the exploitative purposes of the British, the American intentions of spreading democracy and individual rights are incompatible with the notion of an empire. The genius of American power is expressed in the movie The Godfather II, where, like Hyman Roth, the United States has always made money for its partners. America has not turned countries in which it intervened into deserts; it enriched them. Even the Russians knew they could surrender after the Cold War without being subjected to occupation."-from the wikipedia entry for 'Project For A New American Century'.

I must admit I knew nothing about its beginnings and aims regarding regime change in Iraq going and the leglislation passed by the US Congress effectively legalising said regime change going back to the Clinton adminstration in 1998.

"Economic expansion does not equal imperialism" I'm not at all sure exactly how this is possible without well being imperialistic and using force or other forms of coercion. Empires, such as those based on naval power like the United States, have effective territories beyond the home state known as client states

This logic and method WAS used probably by every empire in history, specifically the Roman and later British policy of adopting client kings and using foreigners in their armies. I mean, this continues this day think of the Gurkas and the French Foreign Legion.

"If America is an empire, then why was it unable to mobilize its subjects to support the war against Saddam Hussein?" But does this mean that the policies of Empires are supported entiredly by thier citizens and allies? This proposition is of course ridiculous but also shows the arrogance of the modern empire planners: "We're right cos no one else is even though not everyone agrees with us...so, you're either with US or you're with the TERRORISTS. You're not a terrorist are you?"

Economic expansion....into an unoccupied area? Well this is really colonialism, and unless the colonists are independent of the home nation this is still imperialism.If any citizen or apoligist of say China granted that nation the sole right to "Economically Expand" into other spheres anyone could say that individual was racist.The very concept of "Manifest Destiny" is itself racist or at least I suppse blasphemous. It certainly denies any religion or creed to believe differently.

Military expansion continues. According to Cynthia Mckinney, Obama is sending 12,00 US troops destined for Lybia to Malta.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/01/491180.html

Regardless of the situation in Lybia, many nations are still occupied: Japan,South Korea, the UK, Afganistan and others.

Why should Russia surrender? Why is this important? Does every nation not have the right to economic sovereignty? Of course, in a globalised world this is impossible and neither is real autarky to be desired either but only China and possibly the EU can exert pressure on the US, and only economic pressure at that.

Does "freedom" only come from American corporations and NGOs? Why does freedom have to be defined by a narrow American conception, a conception bastardised beyond the hopes of even the founding fathers-seperation of church and state, a well-regulated militia and private property being what a private citizen can use by his own hands and means not those of wage slaves.

America is not the goal of freedom. It is a legalised corporate entiity. Any idea of it being a voluntary federation or association of free individuals is kicked out of the water by two word: constitutional republic. That means the dead have authority over the living or at least allows sections of the living to rule on behalf of the dead. The Indians did not volunteer to be exterminated and ethnically cleansed. Blacks did not volunteer to be slaves. Immigrants do not volunteer to live as outlaws and generations of the past did not volunteer for future poverty,anti-union legislation, false flag bombings and federal assassination programmes.Did the current generation choose to be born to allow the imolation of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Lybians and Afgans and did the immolated in turn volunteer to be sacrificed for American Power and Economic Expansion?

Final* description of Earth Force Ranking System

Simply, I am assuming that the left hand list represents the actual commissioned ranks with any equivalent ranks or titles in the right hand list.
Being:
Joint Chiefs of Staff=General

Admiral=General
Vice-Admiral=Lieutenant-General
Rear-Admiral (upper)=Major-General
Rear-Admiral (lower)=Colonel

Lieutenant-Colonel=Group Captain
Sector Captain=Commander
Major=Lieutenant-Commander
Lieutenant**=Wing Commander**
2nd Lieutenant=Squadron Leader

*[probably, but check my other blog via my profile for further details/analyses]
**Galus is named both Lieutenant and Commander, if not actually a Lieutenant-Commander I would suggest his position in the chain of command is as a Lieutenant with his rank as a senior Starfury pilot as Wing Commander.However, in real-world military structures this is a much higher rank equivalent to Commander or Lieutenant-Colonel.

Descendant

Descendant ten million days from home
Following the signal of the long-dead
The Vanished, who's time ran out

Descendant of the Pilot
Eve of the ten million days
Only a hundred vials, daughters all self-impregnated by miniature Adams

The one descendant finds the Lost Tribe of the Vanished
Now barely literate, they soon learned to read the old letters
And the new

Descendant,aged but still young
Herself childless but so many siblings
Now themselves landlord-tenants of a dozen stars

Descendant sends the signal
"We are here"
That shines for a hundred million nights

Then makes the long way back
To the Old Place
The Homestead

[note ten to power seven days equals 28,000ish years]

Democracy

Democracy
Terror
State
Makes dictators of us all

(10.8.2010)