Y Repwblic
Conversations with Wales' Republicans : Poblachiaethwyr - Repwbligwyr - Gweriniaethwyr

The Politics of Love : Republicanism as Friendship

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Damcanol - Theoretical
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2637

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:34 pm    Post subject: The Politics of Love : Republicanism as Friendship Reply with quote

Well as ever I have been passing away a sleepless night by having a rather pleasurable time : this one starts out with Marcus Tullus Cicero and eventually arrives at Barry John via an evening's excursion to witness the Prime Minister perusing pornography which is followed by the liberation of members of The Royal Family from their prostitution and then debates its way through matters of good manners for Republicans until it descends into the vexed question as to whether the referees are now in league with the dark powers in order to claim sovereignty over the soil of Wales for England and thereby deny the obvious fact that every Welsh person is indeed a prince or princess until you kiss them and wake the following morning in bed with ... a nice friendly, polite and courteous person who is really proud of their dirty feet ... and I can promise you : this was not a spoiler !

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the leaflet for " Yr Ardystiad " I mentioned Republicanism as " The Politics of Love " in the following section -

http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?t=438

ATTESTATIONS OF ARDYSTIADAU

There are various legal aspects to publicly attesting to being a republican in Wales, and the wording of this ' Ardystiad ' and its use of a ' Trilliw ' have been chosen for a specific purpose : to challenge the continued existence of the TREASON FELONY ACT 1848. We therefore advise people not to enter into making this Attestation unless they fully understand that it is an Act of Civil Disobedience designed to infringe this law that criminalises those republicans who peaceably advocate that the sovereignty of our society is vested in its laws, not in the monarchy nor in parliament. Republicanism is about making good laws and breaking bad laws, and it derives its name from ' De Re Publica, ' a book by Julius Caesar's opponent Marcus Tullius Cicero. He argued that the sovereignty of a law is derived from the justice that it procures for the people. Republicans in Wales believe that we are prevented from publicly explaining such political arguments by the legacy of this unjust law and of the propaganda made against those who opposed the injustices of the British Empire. Opinion polls regularly report that one in five people in Wales describe themselves as ' Republican ' and all four parties in the Assembly draw upon ' The Politics of Love,' & yet - they do not love us.


- and whilst writing the thread " Friendship as the Basis of Republican Organisation " I said -

http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?t=1056

" ... I have no clearly worked out theoretical reasoning to offer as yet besides to quote my own experiences in politics which are indeed those that underpin my political disposition. To connect Friendship with any political ideal seems to some offensive, and to claim it as the actual basis for Republican Organisation will for many be the very reason for reading no more ... "


- and that is still true ... and rather more embarrassing to admit is that if I was aware of Cicero's arguments about friendship when I wrote that I had not yet connected them with his arguments about Republicanism itself ... but now I am literally lame ( instead of merely being literary lame ) I am spending a lot of time flat out on the bed listening to various American lecturers who are much more in the habit of videoing themselves for posterity than Welsh ones are ... most of these things are barely audible, rambling and irrelevant - not to mention badly conceived in terms of visual presentation - but this guy is not half bad and about two thirds of the way through the first lecture my ears began to prick up and I was muttering out loud - " yes ... Yes ... YES ... YE-ow ... ooow ... woo ... " ... one thing to remark perhaps is that given his careless dress sense, his abstracted view of politics and his antipathy towards what I would call " The Democrats in the USA " ( which for American readers I must point out I am using to mean all of those who practice Democracy in all of its forms, including American Democratic Republicanism and French Republican Democracy ) - that this guy would pass for a " Republican in Wales " because he seems to me to be very much to be inclined towards and preaching what I refer to as a " Pure Republicanism " i.e. that the business of politics consists of facts and arguments and nothing else : Democracy is merely another form of coercion - an Ultraism which practices the dividing of society into antogonistic camps in order to demand and exploit blind tribal loyalties- and therefore by definition Democracy can not be " The Politics of Love."

If you are short on time, in order to get straight to the meat in the argument presented, start listening to the first lecture at ( 30.00 / 1.09.37 )

Gregory B. Sadler - Intro to Philosophy: Cicero, On Friendship ( part 1 )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhZiWb1MhJA

In this discussion / lecture session from my Fall 2013 Introduction to Philosophy class at Marist College, we begin our study of Cicero's work, On Friendship. We discuss in particular the different sorts of relationships withing which we find meaning, enjoyment and satisfaction, what sorts of good people make a central priority in their lives and what the implications for friendship are. We also discuss Cicero's strong claim that only good people can actually be friends with each other. The classic question -- whether friendship is based on difference and opposites, or on similarity gets transformed into questions about what kind of opposites really can be attracted to each other, and a discussion about the attractive nature of virtue.

A student asks a particularly good question -- how does Cicero's position on friendship get past Aristotle's position, which also distinguishes between friendships based in virtue or moral goodness and friendships that are based merely in pleasure or usefulness. One answer to this is that Cicero work off of Aristotle's position, adding considerations of other goods. A better answer is that Cicero focuses more explicitly on virtue's attractiveness, virtue's natural expression in doing good actions and good will towards others, and the importance of "re-loving" ( redamare,) i.e. loving in return.

Gregory B. Sadler - Intro to Philosophy: Cicero, On Friendship ( part 2 )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDb7KIYg4dA

In this lecture/discussion session from my Fall 2013 Introduction to Philosophy class at Marist College, we continue and finish our discussion of Cicero's work On Friendship. We discuss why virtue or moral goodness -- or at least recognizing it and working towards it -- is needed for friendships in the fullest sense. We also look at just how virtue unfolds within friendship, then discuss a common problematic: friends asking friends to do things that are morally wrong or shameful. We also discuss Cicero's criticisms of some proposed limitations or boundaries for friendship and finish by discussing breakups.


Last edited by dai on Fri Sep 18, 2015 6:32 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2637

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The common name for the politics also known as " Nomocracy " and " Cosmopolitanism " which are also forms of " Republicanism " is derived from Marcus Tullius Cicero's book " De Re(s) Publica " - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Re_Publica

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Tullius_Cicero

Marcus Tullius Cicero ( 3 January 106 BC – 7 December 43 BC ) was a Roman philosopher, politician, lawyer, orator, political theorist, consul and constitutionalist. He came from a wealthy municipal family of the Roman equestrian order, and is widely considered one of Rome's greatest orators and prose stylists. ... Petrarch's rediscovery of Cicero's letters is often credited for initiating the 14th-century Renaissance in public affairs, humanism, and classical Roman culture. According to Polish historian Tadeusz Zieliński, "Renaissance was above all things a revival of Cicero, and only after him and through him of the rest of Classical antiquity." The peak of Cicero's authority and prestige came during the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, and his impact on leading Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, David Hume, and Montesquieu was substantial. His works rank among the most influential in European culture, and today still constitute one of the most important bodies of primary material for the writing and revision of Roman history, especially the last days of the Roman Republic. ...

... Though he was an accomplished orator and successful lawyer, Cicero believed his political career was his most important achievement. It was during his consulship that the Second Catilinarian Conspiracy attempted to overthrow the government through an attack on the city by outside forces, and Cicero suppressed the revolt by executing five conspirators without due process. During the chaotic latter half of the 1st century BC marked by civil wars and the dictatorship of Gaius Julius Caesar, Cicero championed a return to the traditional republican government. Following Julius Caesar's death Cicero became an enemy of Mark Antony in the ensuing power struggle, attacking him in a series of speeches. He was proscribed as an enemy of the state by the Second Triumvirate and consequently executed by soldiers operating on their behalf in 43 BC after having been intercepted during attempted flight from the Italian peninsula. His severed hands and head were then, as a final revenge of Mark Antony, displayed in the Roman Forum. ...

[ ... WHICH IS JUST ANOTHER REASON TO DISPLAY " THE OPEN HAND " AS A SYMBOL OF " REPUBLICANISM IN WALES " ]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laelius_de_Amicitia

Laelius de Amicitia (or simply De Amicitia) is a treatise on friendship by the Roman statesman and author Marcus Tullius Cicero, written in 44 BCE.

Cicero writes about his own experience with friendship. Cicero ponders the meaning of this friendship by using the relationship between Scipio Aemilianus and Laelius to expound his views. Laelius' speech comprises the most part and is instigated by the death of his best friend Scipio and he expresses how he could bear the loss, and explicates his grounds for bereavement. He enumerates what qualities make for good friends, explains what characteristics expose a bad friend, and provides examples from his personal life. Throughout the book, Cicero emphasizes the importance of virtue in friendship and how true friendship cannot exist without it. He writes this philosophy in the style of early Greek philosophers to get to the bottom of the concept of friendship, while presenting his case straightforwardly and in a way that resonates in each of us through human understanding.


[ I HAD A LITTLE DIFFICULTY FINDING A READABLE ON-LINE VERSION - I THINK THAT THIS WAS THE BEST ONE - I HAVE NOT GOT THE TIME TO READ THIS TONIGHT ... BUT THE INTRODUCTION HAS A VERY SUCCINCT AND UNFLATTERING ACCOUNT OF HIS CHARACTER AND LIFE ]

http://faculty.sgc.edu/rkelley/Laelius%20de%20Amicitia.pdf

LAELIUS DE AMICITIA ( LAELIUS ON FRIENDSHIP ) BY MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO

TRANSLATION BY EVELYN S. SHUCKBURGH - EDITED BY RHONDA L. KELLEY


... Caesar who had now become supreme in Rome, was assassinated in 44 B.C., and though Cicero was not a sharer in the conspiracy, he seems to have approved the deed. In the confusion which followed he supported the cause of the conspirators against Antony; and when finally the triumvirate of Antony, Octavius, and Lepidus was established, Cicero was included among the proscribed, and on December 7, 43 B.C., he was killed by agents of Antony. His head and hand were cut off and exhibited at Rome. ... Cicero as a man, in spite of his self-importance, the vacillation of his political conduct in desperate crises, and the whining despondency of his times of adversity, stands out as at bottom a patriotic Roman of substantial honesty, who gave his life to check the inevitable fall of the commonwealth to which he was devoted. The evils which were undermining the Republic bear so many striking resemblances to those which threaten the civic and national life of America to-day that the interest of the period is by no means merely historical. ...
[ NOT TO MENTION WALES - WHICH IS FAR WORSE ... ]

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cicero#Laelius_De_Amicitia_-_Laelius_On_Friendship_.2844_BC.29

( Quotations from ) Laelius De Amicitia - Laelius On Friendship ( 44 BC )

Nam et secundas res splendidiores facit amicitia et adversas partiens communicansque leviores.

For friendship makes prosperity more shining and lessens adversity by dividing and sharing it. ( Section 22 )

Ita pulcherrima illa et maxime naturali carent amicitia per se et propter se expetita nec ipsi sibi exemplo sunt, haec vis amicitiae et qualis et quanta sit. Ipse enim se quisque diligit, non ut aliquam a se ipse mercedem exigat caritatis suae, sed quod per se sibi quisque carus est. Quod nisi idem in amicitiam transferetur, verus amicus numquam reperietur; est enim is qui est tamquam alter idem.

Thus they are destitute of that very lovely and exquisitely natural friendship, which is an object of desire in itself and for itself, nor can they learn from themselves how valuable and powerful such a friendship is. For each man loves himself, not that he may get from himself some reward for his own affection, but because each one is of himself dear to himself. And unless this same feeling be transferred to friendship, a true friend will never be found; for a true friend is one who is, as it were, a second self. ( Section 80 )

Virtute enim ipsa non tam multi praediti esse quam videri volunt.

Few are those who wish to be endowed with virtue rather than to seem so.

Embarassed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esse_quam_videri

" Esse quam videri " means " to be, rather than to seem ( to be ) " and this seems to be a Latin tag commonly used in Republican circles in the USA ... infamously, Machiavelli cynically / satirically inverted it as " videri quam esse " - " to seem rather than to be " - in " The Prince."

[ & AGAIN HERE IS YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A BRITISH INSTITUTION WHICH IS DUTY BOUND TO VIGOROUSLY DENOUNCE ANY MENTION OF REPUBLICANISM BUT LIKE SO MANY OTHERS STEALS FROM REPUBLICAN POLITICAL CULTURE - AND USES " ESSE QUAM VIDERI " AS A MOTTO ]

https://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/aboutus/factsandfigures/mottoandcoatofarms.aspx

YES ! - YOU READ THAT RIGHT - " ROYAL HOLLOWAY " ... HENCE MY ARGUMENT THAT IN PLACING THEMSELVES BEYOND THE RULE OF LAW MONARCHISTS ARE EXCUSING THEMSELVES FROM BEING EITHER RATIONAL OR REASONABLE ... THEIR " POLITICAL PRINCIPLE " IS THAT IF THEY LIKE SOMETHING - THEN THEY SIMPLY TAKE IT - AND THEN THEY ARGUE THAT THEY ARE NOT THIEVES BECAUSE THE LAWS THAT THEY APPLY TO US ARE NOT TO BE APPLIED TO THEMSELVES ... THIS IS WHY PEOPLE ARE INFATUATED WITH THE IDEA OF MONARCHY AND WHY REPUBLICANS SEE SUPPORTERS OF THE MONARCHY AS NO MORE THAN VICARIOUS WANNABEE CRIMINALS : THEY ARE EXCITED BY THE IDEA OF RECEIVING A SHARE IN THE SPOILS FROM THE MONARCHISTS' CRIMES ... THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO THEN SUDDENLY BECOME " REPUBLICANS " WHEN THEY FIND THEMSELVES TO BE VICTIMS OF THE MONARCHISTS THEMSELVES - THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHOSE FALSE " REPUBLICANISM " IS NO MORE THAN A WAY OF JUSTIFYING THEIR OWN CRIMES - WHOSE CRIMINAL ACTIONS ARE THEN IN TURN USED BY THE SUPPORTERS OF THE MONARCHY TO DENOUNCE THOSE WHO HAVE IN FACT ACTUALLY STUDIED REPUBLICANISM, WHO ARE BOTH RATIONAL AND REASONABLE - WHO ARE IN FACT TRULY " THE REPUBLICANS IN WALES."

FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT READ SUCH SHARP REMARKS FROM ME BEFORE - OR WHO ARE UNAWARE OF THE DISTINCTION IN REPUBLICAN POLITICAL THEORY - I WANT TO REMIND YOU OF THE FATE OF CICERO AT THE HANDS OF THE MONARCHY OF HIS DAY - ANTONY, OCTAVIUS AND LEPIDUS - AND NOTE THAT NONE OF THEM CLAIMED TO BE " ROYAL " ... THEY HAD SEIZED POWER THROUGH A THE OPERATION OF A COMPLETE ULTRAISM USING THE SUPPORT OF THE LIES OF HIERARCHS, THE HATRED OF DEMOCRATS AND THE ENSLAVEMENTS OF ARISTOCRATS TO CREATE A PLATFORM OF COERCION UPON WHICH TO MAKE THEIR BID FOR POWER THROUGH LAWLESS VIOLENCE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THEMSELVES AS A MONARCHY : A COMMUNITY OF INTEREST IN WHICH THEY HAD CONCENTRATED ENOUGH COERCIVE POWER TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE STATE WHILST PRETENDING THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS STILL THE SAME - THAT THE REPUBLIC HAD NOT BEEN OVERTHROWN ...

... HOW THEN DO REAL REPUBLICANS VIEW ANY LOYALTY TO ROYALTY ? ...

... THE ANSWER IS THAT THE CORRECT ATTITUDE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT " ROYALTY " - I.E. TO THE POSSESSION OF ANYTHING BY VIRTUE OF BIRTH - IS TO BE TREATED AS A LUDICROUS CLAIM WHICH IS TO BE DISMISSED WITH SCORN ... THIS WAS USUALLY ARGUED IN TERMS OF A MAN NOT INHERITING HIS FATHER'S ABILITY E.G. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INHERITED GENIUS - A PERSON'S ABILITY IS NOT INHERITED BUT A CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR OWN CHARACTER, OF THEIR OWN " VIRTUE " WHICH CAN BE TRANSLATED AS " MANLINESS." THUS THE TRADITIONAL ATTITUDE TOWARDS PERSONS CLAIMED TO BE " ROYAL " IS TO TREAT THAT CLAIM WITH SCEPTICISM AND EITHER TO BE DIPLOMATIC ABOUT IT AND FOR THE SAKE OF A QUIET LIFE JUST FOLLOW THE COURT'S CONVENTIONS - " E.G. YOUR MAJESTY " - OR TO POLITELY BUT FIRMLY ASSERT A SINGLE AND UNVARYING STANDARD OF COURTESY TOWARDS ALL PERSONS - WHICH IS THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION ... AN INTERESTING VARIATION ON THIS AROSE IN THE USA WHEN WASHINGTON HAD ALL SORTS OF PROPOSALS MADE TO HIM FOR GRANDIOSE TITLES TO MATCH THE CROWNED HEADS OF EUROPE FOR HIM TO USE IN DEALING WITH THEIR AMBASSADORS - HE REJECTED THEM ALL IN FAVOUR OF REMAINING - " MR PRESIDENT."

DURING THE COMMONWEALTH PERIOD 1650-1660 AS I UNDERSTAND IT THERE WERE GREAT DILLEMMAS CONCERNING WHETHER PEOPLE WERE NOW JUST " MR & MRS " BUT THE PRACTICE OF USING TITLES REMAINED WHICH OFFENDED MANY OF THE MORE ARDENT REPUBLICANS WHO AT THIS TIME BASED THEIR POLITICS ON THE BIBLE AND INSISTED UPON ADDRESSING EACH OTHER BY THEIR CHRISTIAN NAMES. WHEN THE REPUBLIC FELL TO THE PROTECTORATE IN 1653 CROMWELL REJECTED THE CROWN BUT HE WAS ALWAYS OFFICIALLY ADDRESSED SUCH AS " THE LORD PROTECTOR " EXCEPT THAT HE WAS TOLERANT OF THOSE WHO ADDRESSED HIM AS " OLIVER " ... AT THE RESTORATION OF CHARLES II THE ROYALTY WAS VERY SHAKY AND IN THE BEGINNING THEY TOO WERE TOLERANT UNTIL THEY BEGAN TO GET RID OF THE RADICALS BY FINES, IMPRISONMENTS, EXECUTIONS AND ASSASSINATIONS : IT WAS VERY DANGEROUS TO ADDRESS THE KING AS " CHARLES " AND EVEN WORSE NOT TO TAKE YOUR HAT OFF IN HIS PRESENCE ... AND ADDRESSING THE KING AS " FRIEND " WAS ... WELL - PERHAPS THAT WAS IN FACT JUST DOWN-RIGHT DIRTY-CRAFTY ...

http://twonerdyhistorygirls.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/men-behaving-boldly-william-penn.html#sthash.DQWq15Uy.dpuf

One day Charles entered a crowded chamber in Whitehall Palace. As was the custom, every lady curtsied and every gentleman bowed and removed his hat. Except for one: William Penn, the Admiral's embarrassing Quaker son. Determined to make his point for his faith, William remained upstanding, his hat firmly on his head.

Charles stopped before him, pointedly taking note of what could be considered treasonous defiance, and could, too, be rewarded with quick trip to the Tower.

Then the king slowly removed his own hat. This was not what anyone expected, including William himself.

"Friend Charles," William said, with even more daring. "Why dost thou not keep on thy hat?"

Unperturbed, the king answered. "Because it is the custom of this place that only one man should remain uncovered at a time."


... THE MOST STUBBORN OF THE RELIGIO-POLITICAL RADICALS HAD ALL ENDED UP IN THE RELIGIOUS SOCIETY OF FRIENDS I.E. THE MODERN QUAKERS ARE LITERALLY THE LIVING TRADITION OF 17c REPUBLICANISM - IT WAS BORN OUT OF THE NEED TO POOL EVERYONE'S RESOURCES TO RESIST THE RESTORATION'S RAMPAGE : HUNDREDS DIED, THOUSANDS WERE JAILED, TENS OF THOUSANDS WERE FINED AND EVENTUALLY - GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY - OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND LEFT FOR PENNSYLVANIA ... THE CLUE IS IN THE NAME : WILLIAM PENN'S DEAD FATHER WAS OWED MONEY BY CHARLES II AND HE SETTLED THE DEBT BY GIVING WILLIAM PENN A TRACT OF SOMEBODY ELSE'S NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN LANDS ... ( DO YOU SEE HOW MONARCHY WORKS ? BUT THIS WAS BEFORE 1688, BEFORE THE MONARCHY AND ROYALTY BECAME CLEARLY SEPARATED THINGS ) ... YET WHEN THE QUAKERS OBTAINED THIS " GET-OUT-OF-JAIL-NOT-QUITE-FREE-COLONY " AND FLED THE UNITED KINGDOM THEY DID NOT ACT LIKE MONARCHISTS - THEY NEGOTIATED WITH THE NATIVES FOR LANDS TO SETTLE ON AND WHERE QUAKERS WERE IN THE MAJORITY IN " NEW ENGLAND " THEY LIVED PEACEABLY WITH THEM.

Knowing the true history of the origins of the Religious Society of Friends I have no difficulty in asserting that " QUAKERISM IS REPUBLICANISM " but my fellow Quakers want to stick to the " official story " which was devised in the 1670-80s at the height of the persecution by Charles II : once you have pieced all of the other facts back into the picture it becomes obvious that in the 1640s - after over two hundred years of development - this was the last flowering of Renaissance Republicanism ... the failure of this kind of Religious Republicanism to hold together the Barebones Parliament should be of no particular surprise, and when Hobbes and Locke erupted onto the scene thereafter theirs was a response to this failure : religious ideologies were thereafter abandoned as being utterly impractical ... yet Quakerism translated over to Pennsylvania created the society which a hundred years later declared itself to be The Republic of The United States of America ... it is a pity about the " of " in there ... but you can not have perfection in this world ...

( ... And whilst talking of this being an imperfect world ... It is true that the Quakers from England drew up the plots in Pennsylvania in such a way that the Quakers from Wales were divided and kept in minorities within the English speaking communities so that their dream of a " NEW WALES " could not be realised in Pennsylvania - but that is a story for another day ... and it was - I think - conspiracy not cock-up ... and it was not at all friendly ... really ... I mean - really !!! )

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... AND GIVEN MY OWN IMPERFECTION ... A SHORT ENDING TO THIS PIECE BECAME A LONG ONE SO I WILL BREAK THE THREAD AND POST IT NEXT ...


Last edited by dai on Fri Sep 18, 2015 5:24 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2637

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toga
- this is a pre-postscript concerning this quotation from Cicero's De Officiis -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Officiis

Free citizens were required to wear togas because slaves would wear tunics ... It was denied to foreigners, and even to banished Romans, and it was worn by Roman magistrates on all occasions as a badge of office. ... Because the toga was not worn by soldiers, it was regarded as a sign of peace. A civilian was sometimes called togātus " toga-wearer " in contrast to sagum-wearing soldiers.

Cicero's De Officiis contains the phrase " cedant arma togae " - " let arms yield to the toga " - meaning " may peace replace war " or " may military power yield to civilian power."

Toga picta : literally " Painted toga." The expensive purple ( often decorated with gold ) worn by generals in their triumphs, by the Praetor Urbanus when he rode in the chariot of the gods, by consuls and emperors at special events and by magistrates at the games.

Toga praetexta : The ordinary white toga with a broad purple stripe on its border. It was worn by - The Kings of Rome - priests - magistrates - dictators - freeborn boys who had not yet come of age - those honoured by The Republic in Rome i.e. the stripe denotes " of the Republic."

Toga candida : The White Toga - literally " bright toga." A toga bleached and then chalked to a dazzling white, worn by candidates ( from Latin candida, " pure white " ) for public office.

Toga pulla : The Black Toga - literally " dark toga " It was worn mainly by mourners, but could also be worn in times of private danger or public anxiety. It was sometimes used as a protest of sorts e.g. when Cicero was exiled the Senate resolved to wear togae pullae as a demonstration against the decision.


There are a number of arguments against " Royalty " in Republicanism which are not strictly related to this theme of " Republicanism as Friendship " but you might argue that the founding story of the Republic of Rome is one of them ... almost from its inception - but actually as a sort of accident involving the need to quickly knock up the original " repwblic.org " website which is set aside from " repwblic.informe.com " - the badge / logo of " Y Repwblic " etc has simply been written in white lettering highlighted with a purple background. This is because it is easy to do and upon a white piece of paper it imitates / suggests the purple stripe which bordered the toga of a young citizen of Rome. Adult citizens apparently did not have them on their togas, except in wearing certain badges of particular offices : the " candidates " for offices wore bleached / chalked robes called the " toga candida " - the " white toga " - hence the political colour of Republicanism is " White " - we are " The Whites " - " The Candidates." Before a young man came of age at fourteen he wore the toga praetexta which had the purple stripe which immediately marked him out - in the crowds of assorted rags which convulsed Rome - as belonging to that group of people whom others wanted to know : their future lives and political prospects would depend upon whom they knew ... in modern times this is like a teenager's haircut becoming the basis upon which others will approach them ... reflecting upon my own life, the friends that I met in my late teens are still my closest friends ... OK ... ok ... she made me cut all of my long curly black hassidicky locks off - and dress appropriately ... and taught me to behave appropriately ...

... our real friends never agree with us because they are always themselves with us : those friends which always agree with us are surely our worst enemies ...

When Tarquin the King of Rome was overthrown he was wearing what all kings of his day wore : the most expensive of all robes because it was dyed with Tyrian purple and this symbolised his hereditary claim to The Divine Right To Rule ... to prevent anybody seizing the robe and then trying to have themselves installed as the next king those who had joined forces to overthrow him tore the purple robe to pieces and thereby symbolised that each of them shared in the right to rule : the original families which did this treasured these fading rags for centuries because they had to produce them as proof of their inherited political rights to participate in the government of Rome e.g. as magistrates ... now - note that these " Patricians " political rights were INHERITED : as Rome grew into a large city they were totally outnumbered by those whose ancestors had originally lived elsewhere ... Most of these " Plebians " were extremely poor, barely more than slaves, but some had become very rich - yet they were distinctly separated from the " Patricians " because marriages between them compromised the political rights of the latter ... eventually the latter conceded some political rights to the former after the Plebians defended their shared city from an attack : but the struggles between them went on for centuries, even into the days of Imperial Rome which was in principle in favour of universal equal human rights for all of those who could afford to pay for them ... just like The United Kingdom ...

... The Republic in Rome is not really - by modern standards - a very good example of Republicanism and the reason why is that what Cicero debated about was an ugly, sprawling, arbitrary messy reality into which he and many others wanted to restore some sense of order by appealing partly to its original history and partly to Greek philosophy ... Republicanism as know it has no direct connection to what he described because the origins of Republicanism lie in the rediscovery during the Renaissance of the surviving texts of Classical Roman and Greek political commentators i.e. Republicanism is a body of political arguments which began with the ideals which Renaissance Jewish, Christian and Muslim political philosophers were creating about the long-dead but much admired ( because only partially understood ) city-state empires of Democratic Athens and Republican Rome and Confused Constantinople ... all of these were polytheistic societies which were tolerant of diverse cultures ... but Monotheisms are not ... what the Renaissance scholars longed for was to restore that tolerance ... what European Christians used Republicanism for was to argue for an intransigent intolerance in their campaigns to build their empires ... and now that these same ideologies have changed their names to Communism, Fascism, Anarchism, Socialism, Liberalism and Conservativism ... the moronic medival mayhem of The Crusades is being re-enacted throughout the whole world ...

... and the advocates of these ideologies all have firm handshakes, warm smiles and declare themselves to be " The Democrats in The World " ...

... but we should always be judged not by what we preach but what we practice ... as The Prime Minister tried to explain to The Police Man ...

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/pms/gladwom.html

Now in referring to Gladstone's experiences with prostitutes and his use of some rather tame pornography there I am in fact still pursuing the matter of " Republicanism as Friendship " ... Gladstone did as most people still do in giving money to good causes and of course a minority of people go further and volunteer their time as well and still fewer people go all out and actually found charities ... but I personally find all of that doubtful : in the first instance I do not think that giving money to an organisation to distribute is in fact " charity " - rather I suspect it to be egotism, or bad conscience or ... well, whatever : there is no relationship with the person who supposedly benefits and therefore giving money to somebody else to have a relationship with them does not qualify as a charitable act ... besides that as has been demonstrated time and again a lot of the so-called charities that have been registered are really businesses run for the benefit of those drawing salaries from them ...

... My own rule is that if I am not actively involved in a charity then I give it neither my money nor my name ... at the present moment, given the prospect of perhaps generating a revenue stream out of " repwblic.informe.com " to pay for " repwblic.org," then because there is income involved which must not be mixed up with mine or anybody else's that requires a bank account ... now you do not need a bank account in order to be accountable - you can fake the appearance of legitimately conducting your affairs as a number of charities, companies, governments and trans-national corporations do - you need to conduct your affairs with honesty, integrity and above all with openess : there is no point in conducting your affairs in secrecy ( although privacy is I think allowable ) ... only those conducting their trade in arms, drugs and doubtful currency transactions opt for the kinds of secrecy within which the affairs of The United Kingdom are conducted ... note how much we know about Gladstone's activities with his prostitutes : he conducted himself privately but not secretly ...

... Now I myself am not involved in any activities with prostitutes - either privately or secretly - and I personally find Gladstone's motives to be a bit doubtful : am I to understand that part of what motivated him was to be exposed to sexual temptation but then to resist it ? ... Were Mr and Mrs Gladstone involved in some kind of sado-masochistic relationship in which he would go home full of guilt as the Prime Minister of The United Kingdom - presumeably for screwing The People in Wales and The World - and go down on his knees before her and plead Mrs Gladstone to beat Mr Gladstone, towhip him, to piss all over him, to ... and then all she had to do was simply raise an eyebrow and gruffly say " Do not be silly - dearest ! " ... ? ...

... Sometimes the whole basis of the deepest of our loving attachments seem to be conducted only upon this level ... well - it certainly seems so to me sometimes, because I myself always seem to be helping other people out ... perhaps I should register myself as a charity and make appeals for money to employ others to answer the phone and run around rescuing people from their repetitive mistakes and - hey ! - I could appoint myself " Managing Director " and award myself a six figure salary and ... oh no ... oh-no-no-no ... I would end up with an OBE ... Oh Bloody 'Ell ... NO ! ... Now that is one thing which I really detest about the way in which The Royalty is propped up : by constantly associating the idea of The Royal Family with the charitable works done by other people ... but I wish to issue a caveat upon that e.g. where Prince Charles is concerned - but other Royals too - with actually doing charitable works themselves, albeit that presumeably a lot of that is organised for them in order to credit them with the work done by employees of theirs - but ... I still find that creditable and acceptable because it encourages others to do something themselves - but the whole honours system is ... is ... unprintable ... because it is ( a ) opportunistic ( b ) rigged ( c ) faked ...

... of course occasionally they have the retiring lolly-pop lady to make it look like they are including the poverty-stricken ... but really that kind of thing is really scraping the bottom of the barrel of my credibility : it is not just that such a person is chosen as a jolly-photo-opp - generally because she is in fact the grandma of the local Labour & Cooperative MP - but that all that such a person has done is their job, like the next one in line who is the humungrossly salaried managing director of a charity founded by the neighbouring Conservative & Unionist Party MP in order to provide his daughter with a job working with horses - and the next one in line will be the wife of a Librium Demoncrack Party official who is hoping to create the basis both to be returned to The House of Commanalities next time and in the meantime to save his marriage by founding a charity to help the survivors of marital abuse in the hope that if she spends more time out of the house and sees rather less of him and starts to feel better about herself ... my advice is that if you want to feel better about yourself then do not place your sense of self-worth in the hands of anybody else ...


... the-god-that-I-do-not-believe-in-but-have-faith-in is good for this purpose : it provides me with the useful sense of my sin without the uselessly distracting sense of my being forever damned ...

... my beloved however is ready to provide me forever with that latter distraction ...


Now fallen women were forever damned in Gladstone's day : there were in fact an awful lot of them because for young women the choices of gainful employment were very limited - a good example of this was the Bryant & May matchgirls whose pay and conditions were appalling and which having been published by Annie Besant led to threats from their employers to discover who had described them whereupon the famous strike erupted ... mostly even women married to wealthy men were powerless - excepting prostitutes who for a brief few years could enjoy both money and personal freedom ... excepting that they usually died of syphilis in squalor thereafter, unless they were beaten to a pulp and driven by their scars and reputations into the workhouse - or were casually murdered by the likes of Jack The Ripper ... but whilst damned they had a certain personal cache : being set apart they were the object of all sorts of fantastic ideas - that they were unspeakably evil, that they were misguided, that they were prisoners of a desparate poverty or angels wronged or ... well - you can see that I am demonstrating this as I reel off this list : this is my imagination at work, my own construing in the absence of demonstrable facts ... in contrast, Gladstone got to know the prostitutes which he met and he purposefully investigated the facts of their lives - and he bore the fact that he was despised for it ... " it " was entering into relationships with them instead of treating them like insects or vermin ... and so instead of just handing out money and lecturing them on what he thought that they ought to do - he also got emotionally involved : he was practising " The Politics of Love."

Now there is smaller group of people being set apart who also have a certain personal cache - " The Royal Family." When I was seven it was 1969 and my response to our being told to do a Sunday School project on The Investiture of The Prince of Wales was to start protesting as to why The Royal Family were being treated as equal to, indeed more important than God ? ( ... Well I was only a kid and I still believed in Him back then, but once he started to not believe in me I seriously started to question His existence : it has become a sort of mutual disbelief in each other - I simply can not believe that He created Me - and He simply can not believe that He created Me either ... but aside from that we do seem to be on friendly terms ... He seems to have accepted that logically he can not possibly exist because He is a monism and therefore can not be divided between two categories such as " existing " and " non-existing " ... His beloved immediately chimed in at this point declaring that She finds that whenever She wants something done he always turns out to not exist ... )

When I was in my twenties I was invited to be present at a previous place of employment in order to have Charles admire my work and be photographed standing next to me : I point blank refused ... later on there was something or other going on involving Elizabeth and I was boiling with rage ( probably because on that occasion I was not invited - it is after all always nice to be asked and even nicer to shout " NO - NEVER ! " but my reputation by then was peceding me.) ... Then my opinion began to subtly change : I found my rage against The Royal Family to be ridiculous ... I realised that I was getting caught up in exactly what I alleged others were caught up in - only negatively : my rage was not rightly directed against The Royal Family because my rage was against being coerced to do things like give " The Loyal Toast to The Prince of Wales " when Charles was not even present at our professional functions ... Doubtless The Royal Family rely upon others coercing us to do such things in order to support their institution and as such it may be they should examine their behaviour, but actually I suspect - given what little that I know - that they find those unctious sorts who do these things to be either ridiculous or embarrassing or absolutely offensive ...

... You will note therefore that another aspect of that boiling rage against The Royal Family was because I was at war with my own natural sentiments : I really do not like disliking people - unless there is a good reason, in which case I think that when we have been subjected to deliberate harm by others it does not matter that they protest that they did not mean it ... We all cause harm to others - and sometimes inevitably so - but when we do not acknowledge that harm or refuse even to apologise for it let alone to make ammends for it ... then we deserve to be hated : this is why I have no problem with hating the political system called The United Kingdom nor do I have any problem in naming myself as an enemy of it - and an enemy of anybody who supports it - and I am non-too fond of those who think that nothing can be changed and will not even consider obvious and simple political reforms to alleviate these problems ...

... And as for YOU - The Demockerats in Wales and Westminster who get elected to enjoy the privilege of never acknowledging the deliberate harm which they do to others, safe in the knowledge of absolute indemnity - to me YOU are certainly not The Friends of The People : we are - The Republicans in Wales - and England - and Scotland - and all of Ireland - and The Rest of The Whole Bloody World - for YOU are the enemies of every creature in creation : the enemies of Herself - and probably Him also ... the reader may slightly detect that I am a touch pissed off ... but I hope that you will also detect that I am making a distinction here between The United Kingdom V The Kingdom of Heaven ( AKA " Cymru " ) and that this is a political argument about a despicably dreadful dysfunctional derelicting dregs of a medieval kingdom which is being used to disguise a Monarchy i.e. in modern Democratic ( NOT Demockeratick ) parlance if you prefer - " a military-financial-industrial-media-simplex " ... so for me The Royal Family is like some ancient figure-head which is nailed to the front of a modern battle-ship : the problem is the modern battle-ship - not the medieval figure-head.

The correct Republican attitude towards The Royal Family is therefore as you might expect of The Politics of Love : we have not a clue who they really are, despite the rumours ... but if we should ever get to know the facts they will in all likelyhood turn out to be people such as ourselves : it makes a nonsense of Republicanism to set apart any group of people and deprive them of those same human rights which otherwise we desire both for ourselves and everybody else ... In contrast examine the behaviour of those who profess deep love and loyalty to The Royal Family - but are in fact caught up in private fantasies about them : these people are actively causing The Royal Family to live extremely distressed lives deprived of many of those things which most of us take for granted and for which money and privilege are not compensations ... In contrast examine the behaviour of those who profess deep hatred and utter disloyalty to The Royal Family - but are in fact caught up in private fantasies about them ... and consider the fact that these are the people presented to The People in Wales as " Republicans " by the Hierarchy of the political system called The United Kingdom i.e. BBC WALES, THE WESTERN MAIL etc who profess that they wish to protect The Royal Family from " Republicans."

Where does this idea that Republicans not only hate The Royal Family but actually want to kill them come from ? ... Not from Republicanism - neither from Republican political theory nor from the history of Republican movements : not even during The First (non)Revolution in France were Republicans ( The Girondins ) calling for the death of The King of France - that was The Democrats ( The Jacobins ) ... but then you were not taught that in school were you because the business of the schooling provided in The United Kingdom is to mis-educate, deceive and demoralise ... so they did not teach you either that it was The Republicans in France who helped to overthrow Napoleon and restore The Royal Family in France ... because that does not fit with their propaganda story ... it is true that there were people who tried to kill various members of The Royal Family which The United Kingdom uses for this purpose : it claims that a magical thing called " Sovereignty " is put inside the person who gets crowned and that therefore Republicans want to kill this person in order to destroy this magical thing ... the only snag with this propaganda argument is that it has nothing to do with Republicanism which resolutely refuses to deal in either magical things or any other imaginary concepts - like " Royalty."

Republicanism is founded upon the concept of " The Rule of Law " and in those backsliding varieties of Democratic Republicanism - rather less Republican Democracy - which admit the imaginary idea of " Sovereignty " ( more or less because everybody else is doing it ) then the definition is " Sovereignty is in The Law " i.e. The United Kingdom's non-constitution logically contradicts itself : there are laws which determine who is " royal " - laws which determine who ends up " king " with a crown being placed on their head and being annointed with " sovereignty " - but therefore it is the laws which bestow sovereignty - so thereby in a circular argument the sovereignty is in the law not the person ... now anybody with their head screwed on would see that the Republican argument removes the targets which are presently stuck on the backs of The Royal Family - but in order to agree to that you have to agree to abandon more than two hundred years of propaganda against Republicanism and admit the existence of " Crowned Republics " etc ... but of course all of these passionately Loyalist Royalists would prefer to see The Royal Family all murdered in their beds rather re-admit The Republicans into the political discourses of The United Kingdom ... because we would then probably promptly jail all of these hypocritical lying, cheating, thieving, murdering Demockerats ...

... Now if you do not like the above arguments and you still believe yourself to be a Republican because you are brim full of hatred for The Royal Family - however you reason this to yourself - let me put two other correct Republican arguments to you, one against The Royal Family as an benign institution and the other for The Royal Family as a harmful institution ... The usual concern of Republicans about The Royal Family is as to what happens in a military coup or - the more likely scenario - what happens if Democracy is progressively re-defined to explain away what is being done constitutonally ... as I believe is presently happening and therefore I have taken to referring to The United Kingdom as a " Demockery " ... The People in Wales are not educated to be citizens but subjects and therefore " civics " here consists of being taught to obey the state : if there is a military coup - or even a successful revolt in which Carwyn declares himself " President for Several Lifetimes " - so long as The Royal Family still appear to be in place with their pictures in the papers ... perhaps as long as there will still be an opportunity to enter a free prize draw every five years ... then The People in Wales will be content - they have been the property of others for centuries and like any other farm yard animals they are indifferent to who owns the farm : they will go placidly when called and will believe anything which they are told about the wonderful adventure they are going upon in this knackers' yard truck. " Loyalty to Royalty is Everything " and The Queen waves them all off with " The Royal Open Hand " whilst a Welsh Republican who believes that " Sovereignty is Inside Her Majesty " prods her with a plastic pistol ...

... I think that in fact most Republicans in Wales view The Royal Family as a harmful institution i.e. that it is a gilded cage - a guilted cage - and that those imprisoned within it are nothing to do with " The Royal Family " that is presented for consumption by The People in Wales - and that they are indeed being consumed, that from even before birth they are treated as commodities in the same way that The People in Wales are treated : that we are all indeed victims of The United Kingdom and that therefore they merit fellow-feelings from us to them ... but dare they experience such fellow feelings back ? ... For us to pierce through those fantasies projected upon The Royal Family and to empathise with them is difficult if not impossible : imagine that by chance you are walking on the hills above Myddfai and Charles and Camilla have sneaked out of their cage and - pausing on the M4 bridge to cast away their ermine robes and silver coronets into the Severn Sea - they have driven like crazy in the hope of escape ... well ... you will not know that : how will you greet them ? ...

... Or - how could they greet you ... they are trapped in the prisons of other people's illusions and delusions ... and perhaps driven crazy by them ... perhaps they will always be cast aways in ghostly ermine robes and silver coronets ... but perhaps they are by this time now hungry and dishevilled ... unrecognisable after sleeping several nights in their eco-friendly solar-powered and slightly smaller runabout hatchback which is not working because ... well, nothing works in Wales ... except a friendly greeting and a considerate attitude towards ... everybody - surely ? ... If I were to remove the words " The Royal Family " and replace them with " A Minority Ethnic Community " would that make more sense of this for you ? ... Now at this point my cynicism stops and I suspect myself here of still having some pride in The People in Wales - Republicans or otherwise - because I do not think that I really need to point out how Republicanism preaches the gospel of Universal Human Rights ... you do not need such political theories in order to be a decent person and to do the right thing ...


... Therefore do the same thing when encountering somebody " Royal " as you would do when encountering anybody else - give them a big friendly smile and a big friendly wave of Y Llaw Agored and a big friendly " Helo ! " and remember that you are Welsh and therefore - according to the Republican legal system of Hywel Dda in which everybody's political rights are determined by their relationships to the various Tylwyth - you too have royal blood runnng in your veins ... and just to be on the safe side - because the truth is often much stranger than fictions such as this - lets just update those ancient laws in order to bring them into line with our modern standards of Republicanism in Wales ... uh-huh ... yes ... OK ... well - I have just had this handed down to me from The Highest Legal Authority : it is now official - all persons found to be standing upon Welsh soil have hereby been confirmed to be " Royal " ... and He says that He has always known this to be the case and therefore has always put some in His shoes before He went travelling to other places ... and She says that now She knows He therefore definitely has to wash His own socks afterwards - and all three of His feet before He comes to bed too !

I appreciate that since most of my audience are in China and India this may not hold out much promise of a practical solution for your own problems should you be suffering a personal defecit of " Royalty " - but I can assure you that The People in Wales are indeed very friendly, polite and courteous : if you just Google Wales and politely write in this style to any address - e.g. " The Occupiers - Ty Senedd - CARDIFF - CF10 4PZ - WALES " - and enclose a self-addressed envelope with sufficient postage attached they will be delighted to send you back a little bit of Welsh soil to stand upon in order to share in our Welsh National Royalty ... There is no need to worry unduly about this depleting either our Royalty or our land - we have been giving our land away freely to strangers for centuries ( in fact ours is such good land that some of them have kept coming back for more, century after century ) excepting ...

... look : please do not write to the National Stadium and ask for any of their turf - there is always one hell of a struggle whenever they have any visitors there ... The friendliness, politeness and courtesy disappear immediately anybody steps onto their turf - especially when The People From England are playing, because they are never ever content with our offer for them to enjoy their half of the turf and to leave the Welsh half alone : we have even tried swapping over half way through their visits so that they can try the other half for equally as long - but they are always forming a line - out to get their backs into ours and kick as far as they can into it as if they mean to take it all home - and their constantly driving forwards like this has resulted in many having breakdowns after being locked into rows between those with loose and tight heads with the full backing of others ... their trouble I think is that they do not understand The Royalty in Wales ... Perhaps they imagine themselves to be establishing some kind of " Sovereignty " over The Soil in Wales - but ( as I have pointed out a number of times before ) there is in Pure Republicanism no such thing : there is only The Rule of Law - which in this case is The Nomos as it is manifested in The Laws of Rugby Union as interpreted by The Referees who are dressed in ... DAMN !

Laughing - I think that my metaphor has ...

... No ... They do not dress in black any more ... but I swear to you that if you take their boots off ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_union_match_officials

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_rugby_union

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales_national_rugby_union_team

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_John

" THE TRUE KING OF WALES " - FRIENDLY, POLITE & COURTEOUS = TRUE ROYALTY IN WALES

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Damcanol - Theoretical All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


© 2007-2008 Informe.com. Get Free Forum Hosting
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
 :: 
PurplePearl_C 1.02 Theme was programmed by DEVPPL JavaScript Forum
Images were made by DEVPPL Flash Games