Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: Helios 52 - Back in the USSR

  1. #1
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Helios 52 - Back in the USSR



    Contents
    Limited knowledge for limited minds? by Mr MM.
    Campos do Jordão, the Blossom and the Fondue by Mr MM.
    The Downfall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna Part 2 by Jom.
    Light and Dark by Atlaas.
    'Friends' - A Technical Masterpiece by Rez.
    A Brief Background to Ireland and the Troubles by Copperknickers II.
    Rahl's Rants: An Unrant...Rant - Musings on God by Lord Rahl.





    From the Editor:

    Greetings all,

    As I type these words to you, the sun is shining in through my window as another beautiful summer’s day dies, but already the nights are lengthening and soon autumn will be upon us, with the inevitable winter that follows. This time of year is always a time for new things, particularly for those amongst us who are still in academia; people will be going into a new year at school, starting a new school, or even starting university. If you were amongst the many thousands of people who received their exam results a few days ago, I hope you got what you wanted and are looking forward to an exciting new start at university. I myself am looking forward to the start of my final year and am also looking beyond it to whatever career path I ultimately choose to take.

    This edition of The Helios has been a victim of circumstance, I’m afraid. As summer washed over us in a wave of heat and sunshine – or rain if you live in Belgium – we all took some time off to enjoy ourselves and earn a little money to fun our various excesses, but now we are back, with a bolstered team of talented writers, with some new faces, ready to continue to inform, educate, astound, and whatever else it is that you guys get out of reading this fine publication. Hopefully as the weeks go on, publication will become more regular and more reliable, but one must always remember that these articles are written on a voluntary basis; people take time out of their own busy lives to write for me and you, although the research for my article that I just wrote mainly consisted of sitting in the sun drinking a beer and reading a book.

    On that note, let us get on with the articles and let me get back to my booze.

    Jom




    Mr MM
    Mr MM's offerings this edition are something of a departure from his last ones, demonstrating his great versatility in writing on a number of different subjects. This edition he has worked hard, as usual to bring two articles, the first being on cramming schools found in Brazil and indeed other places, and the second about the stunning location of Campos do Jordão, a secluded resort which resembles a Swiss Alpine town.

    Limited knowledge for limited minds?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    This is going to be withdrawn from my recent endeavor in the the arts of cram school. The cram school is one brazilian type of school that tries to cram us with info from our highschool period, 3 years, into a 1 year or in my case 4 months period. Basically its a mind rape. That violence is needed for us to ingress into college, since that we need to pass the entering exam, called in here vestibular.

    However the problem is not the quantity of the info that needs to be stored, as most people who have gone through college know that there wasn't a more lazy period than highschool. Its the info that is provided that is worrisome.

    At this point, I have to make clear the distinction between information and knowledge. Information comes from any sources, let's say the Helios, or the newspaper. It is a influx of data that you don't filter, you just knowingly consume that.

    Knowledge comes with a price, and that price is the establishment of connections between different info, that can be somehow correlated and thus transformed into a train of thought.

    You can clearly see that the limited period of time given to me by the cram school will not allow for knowledge to be stored, just useless random piece of information to be somehow aggregated into my brain. But its not here that the trouble lies.

    The main problem of that type of teaching is that for us to proceed into a higher degree of education, we need what the cram school provides, and thus this type of procedure has been instituted into the highschool itself, and that is major concern.

    With only the foresight of entering college, the student becomes a mindless library drone, storaging vast amounts of information, with no possible connection to what is inscribed in his brain to the knowledge that it will gain in college.

    The experiment was simple, I have already 2 bachelor degrees, one in International Relations and one in Economical Sciences, and I'm going for a third now in Informational Systems. So I needed to enter college again. So cram school is a go. Upon entering that joyful world I noted that most of what I have learned in college turned out to be wrong, but how could that be?

    Mysteriously my Geography professor (and I will blame Ratzel for that sore mistake) was teaching us what is the definition of liberalism, communism, and he even ventured on telling how it was that neo (neo neo neo) liberalism came into being, how delightful was I to see that not only it was all the fault of a cowboy and an instrument of torture from the middle ages, the economy as I saw that day was a study of autism, since there is no market, there is no pressure from series of economic crisis, the depletion of a economic system, there was nothing of the sorts, just a cowboy and an elderly lady.

    And there was not just that one, there were several, the incongruity of capitalism, the need for reforms, the industrialization period... I was suddenly in awe, several flashes of classes in college, all crumbling into small shards of memory, longing to be replaced, anxious to be swept by sands of truth.

    Bad info aside, what can happen to those young minds?

    They are unable to think.

    To construct a chain of thoughts is an impossible feat for them, as I have learned whilst desperately trying to avoid damages from those ''geography'' lectures. They only store, they can not connect what is in there.

    The comments are shallow, their mind is weak, are the teachers at fault?

    No. The fault is only theirs, the students are their own guard in that prison of information.


    Campos do Jordão, the blossom and the fondue
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Campos do Jordão is a small town located in the Mantiqueira Mountain range, geologists beware those are not mountains in Brazil we have one of the oldest geological formation in the planet, so no mountains.



    Its called as the Brazilian Swiss, since the archtecture from the city draws much from the old european house designs, designers beware this is an aberration, don't freak out. A beautiful place for a people who are used to hotter weather.



    Now the place has a unique mystique, it started its life as a colony for tubercolosis treatment, then it evolved and took the place as a unique destination is Brazil, the height of the place creates a more brand climate, something that gets very harsh for Brazil's standards, and its basically the wind and the cold that attracts so many for its rich night life.



    Its during the winter that the city is booming with people, the festival of the aforementioned season is rich in music and food. The fondue turned out to be the milestone plate for people in Campos do Jordão, that and the always high consume of wine and the local beer, Baden Baden, pace the flow of life in the city-resort. The colorful night is filled with good restaurants, lots of night clubs, and the occasional flirtation make the city one of the number resorts for people of all ages.





    Shortly after the winter festival there is the japanese festival, otherwise known as the Cherry Blossom festival. This celebration takes place in one of the oldest neighborhoods in Campos do Jordão, it began when the colony of tuberculosis was transformed into a retirement community, a japanese one.

    Its inhabitants brought some cherry trees from japan, and the community grew and the festival as well. The 15th was the last of this year festival, it already goes by the number of 52. This celebration is much like the one that there is in japan, people will come for the food and the crafts, some for the cultural shows. I honestly just go for the blossom.



    Jom
    This week, I have continued my series of articles about the Congress of Vienna. If you remember where we were last time, Napoleon was in a very dangerous position with Russian troops pouring into Central Europe, threatening his allies, and with one – Prussia – already having gone over to the Russian side.

    The Downfall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna Part 2
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Manoeuvres in Saxony and the Congress of Prague

    With one ally having completely deserted him, and with the other in the form of Austria acting very suspiciously, Napoleon left the imperial palace at Saint-Cloud and joined his army in Erfurt on the 25th April. Prussia and Russia, meanwhile, had taken the offensive with the vanguard of the allied army crossing into Saxony and occupying its capital, Dresden. Saxony had been a staunch ally of Napoleon's as its king, Frederick Augustus, owed his crown to the French Emperor, Napoleon having elevated him from the status of Elector to King. Saxony was also an important location for the allies as both Prussia and Russia had their own designs for the erstwhile kingdom.

    Before starting the campaign, Alexander had made it clear that he wanted the entirety of Polish lands, which included parts of Prussia. Frederick William was understandably wary of this as he had already seen his kingdom dismantled once at the hands of Napoleon; he did not relish the thought of it happening a second time. Alexander, however, was accommodating and promised to make up for the losses with lands in Germany, the most obvious of which would be Saxony. Frederick Augustus therefore found himself in an extremely precarious position. His army had already been brushed aside by the Russians and he was facing a dilemma: ally with Alexander and Frederick William and find himself facing the wrath of Napoleon, to whom he felt a real attachment, or side with Napoleon and risk losing his throne and kingdom were the allies to be victorious against the French. In the end he opted for the middle-road and joined Metternich as he hovered between both camps.

    The allies did not enjoy their position of strength in Dresden for long. Clashing with the French army near the town of Lützen on 2nd May, the allies were dealt a stinging blow that sent them reeling, abandoning Saxony completely and retreating to Silesia. Frederick Augustus promptly re-occupied his capital and acted as though nothing had happened, cancelling his alliance with Austria. While a fairly significant battle, Lützen never became the crushing victory it could have been for Napoleon as he lacked cavalry to chase and harry the retreating allied army. Having lost an enormous number of horses in his disastrous campaign of 1812, Napoleon's cavalry corps never recovered and he would therefore be unable to truly take advantage of any victories that he won. After fortifying Dresden for use as his base of operations, Napoleon struck again on May 20th at Bautzen, although he lost his sincere friend in the battle, Marshal Duroc, Napoleon gained another victory that was again marred by a lack of cavalry. Suddenly, Napoleon called an end to the advance and declared he would wait for reinforcements. At this time, Metternich had been trying to get both sides to agree to an armistice before either one won a decisive victory. Metternich was haunted by the idea that France should reach a peace independent of Austria so he constantly entreated both sides to at least declare an armistice which would be mediated by Austria. The allies, following Lüzen and Bautzen, eagerly seized upon the chance of an armistice as it gave them a reprieve. Surprisingly, Napoleon also agreed to an armistice, losing the momentum which he had built up from his first two victories. This would be a momentum that he would never regain, and through accepting the armistice, Napoleon, in the words of one Russian general "saved the allies and condemned him[self]".

    Metternich had no real intention of mediating between the two camps; he simply wanted to buy time and gain Austria the moral upper hand. If Austria deserted her French allies simply out of opportunism, it would damage her reputation and lead to suspicion from her new Prussian and Russian allies. Metternich therefore resolved to set up a peace conference in Prague which could not help but end in farce. To this end, he made demands which he knew would be unacceptable to Napoleon and refused to include Britain in the negotiation. Britain was a source of continued worry to Napoleon as he realised they were the key to peace; to satisfy Britain was to obtain a lasting settlement as the other three - Austria, Prussia, and Russia - could be trusted to squabble amongst themselves and stab one another in the back as they scrambled for influence in central Europe. Prague, therefore, was doomed to failure before it even started and the armistice was soon concluded without any resolution. This was exactly what Metternich wanted; on August 12th, Austria declared war on France, citing how she had been wronged by France and that it was clear that France had no interests in peace. Just hours before, Napoleon had send an envoy to his ambassadors to the congress, Caulaincourt and Narbonne, instructing them to "make peace at all costs". It was, however, too late.


    Atlaas
    I’m sorry to say that Atlaas is something of an unknown to me, although the quality of his writing is not. As the latest addition to the Helios team, he has written a brief history of religions and ideologies in Europe and the wider world.

    Light and Dark: the evolution of the Religion and Ideologies in Europe
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Religion

    First was the light, then religion followed soon afterwards. Archeology proves that as soon as man had spent one day on earth, he was engulfed with some kind of belief in supreme power, spirits, other world, reincarnation, shamanism, extra-power, suprerpowers, … No matter what our opinions are about it, these believes and sometimes the myths that go with it, helped the people to come together and construct brilliant civilizations. Would Egyptians ever build pyramids if they did not believe in life after death? Would people from different ethnicities fight together under one flag if they did not believe in the same gods?
    After many millennia of polytheism, a new kind of religion spread from the Middle East into the rest of the world, especially Europe. Monotheism, or believe in one God, as opposed to many, emerged in three stages: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Christianity become the dominant religion in Europe and was “kindly brought” to the colonies of European nations during the age of “Empire” in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Strangely though, as the Europeans were spreading their religion to the world, it was under severe pressure at home. Yes, science and the spread of knowledge, above all literacy all led people of Europe to gradually leave the churches. We have all heard of figures such as Robespierre and Darwin, who questioned existing beliefs and brought new ideas. Recent polls suggest that less than 5% of western European people go to church on regularly basis.

    Ideology

    The process started in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with the effects of the enlightenment - spread of knowledge and art - then the French Revolution and its ideals. New thinkers wanted to create the “Ideal City” on Earth, not in the Heavens. Religion was no longer the solution but the problem. French thinkers, German philosophers and English minds all blamed it for Europe woes. They started a quest for the ultimate doctrine, the one that will replace religion and ensure a new state of happiness for the mankind. The ideology was born.
    The dwindling of religion accelerated in the 18th and 19th centuries. The vacuum left paved the way for the Ideologies to conquer people’s hearts and minds. Democracy and Nationalism came mainly with the French Revolution flooding Europe (with Napoleon armies acting as old religions knights and missionaries). Towards the end of the 19th century, the burgeoning proletarian class increasingly looked to communist ideals. While other extremists were making their way spreading fascist ideas, building on the bitterness and frustration of angry mob. Every nation chose its camp and Europe was once again ready for war. Wars of religions had ended, but wars of ideologies had just started. The First World War had paved the way, revealing communism to the world in the form of Bolshevik Russia. Next was WWII which resulted in the eradication of fascists and separated the world in two camps: Democracy against Communism. That war was cold, we all know the winner.

    The start of something new

    With Catholicism in an advanced state of dislocation, the quasi-disappearance of Communism and the establishment of Democracy and free-trade as the universal norm, the ideologies that dominated the 20th century are becoming old fashioned in the 21st. People want something new. The quest for the new Grail of mankind’s happiness is underway once again. So what will be the next big thing that will capture people’s mind?
    The waning of religions and 20th century dominant ideologies is leaving new gaps into which newly born “micro-ideologies” are trying to ingrain. Sects, Ecologism, Anarchism, Alter-globalization activism, and many more new movements have already established themselves as new ways of thinking and living. New causes are emerging that are worth fighting and sometimes dying for. Their leaders understand very well how to use the new media, information technologies and marketing strategies to seduce and attract followers. Competition is hard and increasing and every possible means is used. If the Internet is nowadays the vehicle of the new “proselytism” - used even by terrorist groups as a main way of recruitment - marketing is the heart of it. Sects such as Scientology and Kabbale are hiring top Hollywood stars to advertise their cause. Some other movements organize rock concerts and even clubbing events to get themselves on the stage. Who can predict how these new ideologies will evolve in the next decades?
    As the French philosopher Joseph Renan said: “A religion is a sect that succeeded”. Evangelists have demonstrated the viability of this concept stemming from a sectarian state into some kind of a new religion, converting whole countries in Central America and are on the rise in the Far-East. It is not impossible that Evangelism will be declared soon as a state religion one of those places. But they are not alone. Jehovah’s witnesses, Scientologists, and others are also competing to make new converts.

    Ecology as a scenario

    But let’s explore a totally different scenario. We’re in 2100, oil wells have almost dried, the CO2 has made the atmosphere barely breathable and wild life is gone is at the break of extinction. Ecology is on the rise, spreading fast. In every corner of the planet, people are changing their lifestyle. Ecological parties are scoring above the 60% and even controlling some governments. “No impact” men are no longer weird people, they are the example to follow, the new prophets of the new world. Impossible? Who knows?


    Rez
    Rez has decided to rejoin the ranks of the content staff and, interestingly, has not written an article about the Persians. His offering this week is about a sitcom which should be familiar to all of us: Friends, and why it is such a masterstroke of television.

    'Friends' - A Technical Masterpiece
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Greetings one and all! Its been a while since I've had the editor's whip at my back but the executive bathroom makes it all worthwhile. Jom asked me to write something for the Helios a while ago and at first I pretended I was too busy writing my thesis but the attraction of procrastination is undeniable. I started having dreams of Jom on an island, wearing a silky dress singing his siren song of seduction. It was too much for a mere boy like me to handle and so here I am; at your beck and call once again.

    I'd like to write a little something on a Sitcom which managed to garner gargantuan success at the same time as fermenting a considerable amount of disdain from certain crowds. We all remember the stories of the cast being paid one million dollars for each episode and I'm sure we all looked at the show with a little bitterness whilst we swilled that knowledge around in our heads. I still can't condone that amount of money being handed over for that amount of entertainment but I can certainly see why the show rocketed to such an insane level of popularity.

    The strength of the show wasn't in any of the events that occurred during the program and the continuous plot was never what captivated the audience. On paper, a sitcom about six white, middle-class friends living in New York doesn't sound all that interesting. There really isn't any distinguishing feature to the central tenet of the show like there is for a comedy such as Flight Of the Conchords.

    So what then is its appeal?

    The genius of the construction of a show like 'Friends' is to be found firstly in the relatability of the characters but more importantly the division and assignment of certain types of comedy to certain characters. The best way to explain this is to go through each of the friends and describe what sort of relatability and comedy they were assigned.

    Ross is the male character that the average guy is supposed to project on to. He isn't overly confident but he's not a complete mess of insecurities either. For the majority of the series' he is also the 'relationship guy'. The protagonist we can all relate to as he struggles to win the affections of his beloved and then we all wish we could be as he actually attains the wonder-girl. Then as they go through the break-up we relate to all the horribleness that always entails. In a nutshell, Ross goes through the three stereotypical phases of a relationship so that he covers as many areas of relatability as possible. More than just relating to people with similar experiences it is also very easy to compare each character with friends in our own group. We all know a 'relationship guy' who's ostensibly a great person but just maybe a bit too devoted to their lady.
    As for his comedic role, Ross almost solely takes care of the situational comedy. Other characters are put into embarassing situations but with nowhere near the frequency or level of detail that Ross gets. Think back to the funniest moments you can remember involving Ross and they will likely include a majority of situations involving awkwardness or embarassment.

    Chandler is a particularly cynical creation and this is wonderfully reflected in his character. He is insecure, works a job he hates, smokes and can't get a date. He's the guy that the bitter, less than successful guys are supposed to relate to. But, just as with Ross, Chandler covers a lot of bases with his defects so he can be there simply for the guy who can't get laid or the guy who hates his job. Later in the shows plot Chandler is placed in a comitted relationship and whilst he retains his cynicism and insecurity he moves into relating to people who are terrible boyfriends. Again the character is someone we can all see traces of in real life as well as relating to ourselves. That guy that hangs around cracking jokes at peoples' expense even though he's not exactly doing well for himself. Yeah, we all know that guy.
    Chandler's comedic role is pretty obvious. He, moreso than any other character, provides cynical commentary with witty wise-cracks. As a secondary feature he also provides comedy in either failing to pick up women or failing at being in a relationship.

    Joey is a very straightforward character since his relatability is more based on an idea rather than reality. There are perhaps a few people that can genuinely relate to the success Joey has with women but the vast majority of us look upon him as an ideal and just want to relate to him in this regard. Perhaps more pertinently is the intention that we look upon Joey and relate him not to ourselves but to someone we know who is more successful with women than us. Joey's second character draw is his stupidity and laziness. This is obviously meant in the same vein as his romancing skills since no one is intended to relate to being stupid. Again we quietly relate him to someone we know and since Joey is exceptionally good hearted even for a 'Friend' his dim wits are actually transformed into a species of lovableness.
    Joey has a fairly strong monopoly on the physical comedy of 'Friends'. This doesn't solely refer to slapstick humour, although almost all of the slapstick in Friends involves Joey. His physical comedy is brought across almost entirely by his facial expressions as he delivers what would normally be not that amusing lines. He will also use much more extravagant body language than any other character but his face is where the real action is at. Seriously, next time you watch an episode look at his eyebrows as he exclaims something or gets excited.

    Rachel is a very similar character to Joey but she also works in a very similar way to Ross. On the one hand she is glamorous, beautiful and eventually successful which people want to relate to but again are more likely to project this onto their friends. On the other hand she fills out the 'relationship girl' that works as a complete counterpart to Ross but for the ladies.
    Her comedic role is essentially to be laughed at rather than with. In the first couple of seasons the most defining feature of her role is to highlight the inability of pampered rich kids to live ordinary lives. As the seasons progress Rachel becomes much more interchangable as she becomes the only 'friend' not to have a clearly defined role. Predictably, this interchangable nature of Rachel's comedy means she is often considerably less funny than the other characters and she will usually be used to contrast with someone like Monica or play off of Joey.

    Monica is a much more relatable and easily defined role. She acts as a mirror to Chandler's insecurity as she is often as hopless with romance. But she strikes out with a considerable wealth of strength and confidence that manifests as bossyness. She is particularly relatable as she is not only easy for lonely women to project onto but she is also friends with Rachel who can be projected onto their successful friends. This works in exactly the same way with Joey and Chandler.
    Her comedy comes from her exaggerated neurosis and obsessive compulsiveness. Monica is a classic example of caraciture comedy where a persons distinguishing traits are emphasised to the point of lunacy. This isn't just limited to her cleaning or bossyness but also her physical strength which is often amplified to effect a reversal of expectations.

    Phoebe is the outsider of the group as she not only has no long standing connection to any of the friends but she also doesn't live with any of them. This is essential in making her relatable to the people who consider themselves similarly unique. Phoebe's uniqueness is amplified by her zainy new-age beliefs but carried further by her infectious confidence. This is as much a case of projecting onto others as it is relating to personally but with the other friends being such straight forward members of society Phoebe is emphasised as different and that is extraordinarily appealling to a lot of people.
    Phoebe's comedic role is perhaps the most fun as her character actually has very little to do with it. Her main duty is to act as a vehicle for introducing wacky new characters to the group on an episode by episode basis. Phoebe's personal comedy is only ever really found by playing off other characters and with her placement as the outsider she is perfectly positioned to bring in a veritable circus of celebrity cameos to work off of.

    As you can see the writers carefully ensured that as many areas of relatabilty were covered as was possible then made sure that they at least brushed over every type of Sitcom comedy they could. With their comedic roles in place its also useful to see how after being segregated into different areas of relatability and humour they are brought together for the show. Each character has another character that they particularly relate to and another character that they particularly clash with.

    Phoebe's confidence and stilted outlook on life make her the perfect counterpart for the charming but slow Joey. On the other hand she and Ross are often brought together as clashing personalities as Phoebe's new age beliefs, amplified by her confidence, do not go down well with Ross' scientific mind.

    Monica's insecurity and neurosis make her the perfect match for Chandler's own insecurities and relatively weak will. She does, however, clash heavily with Rachel who's glamour and romance are often the cause of jealousy for the much more domestically superior Monica.

    Ross and Chandler both match with their eventual romantic partners. But Chandler, like monica, clashes with his room mate as comedic strife at home has been a staple element of sitcom humour since time began. Chandler's cynicism and intelligence make him the perfect man to crush Joey's wide eyed innocence before miserably watching him run off with all the hot girls.

    Dismantling the character creation might not make the show any more entertaining for you but for me I like to see the workings of the technical writing as I watch an episode. It still isn't the funniest thing ever put on T.V. but its incredibly wide ranging appeal has ensured that long after its end it is still being aired all over the world.


    Copperknickers II
    Copperknickers II is a familiar face for any who frequent the Discussion & Debate section of the forum and he also has a strong presence in the Thema Devia section. An eloquent writer, Copperknickers has decided to regale us with a background to Ireland and the period known as “The Troubles”.

    A Brief Background to Ireland and the Troubles
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Ireland is at the very edge of Europe, exposed to the harsh force of the Atlantic ocean. The ruggedly elegant cliffs of Achill island have withstood the pounding of the waves for millenia, and the rain lashes and soaks the sublime islands of Clew Bay. The grass is a rich, lush green, whence comes the republic's nickname: the Emerald Isle. Ireland's history is, like its scenery, harsh in some places and yet often beautiful; it is a history of violence, occupation, bravery and courage that continue to this day, yet have roots stretching back for centuries.

    The Fenian Cycles give us some information on the ancient history of the island. After the original Neolithic farmers and hunter gatherers, there were a series of migrations and wars, culminating in the arrival of the Celtic Gaels. In the Dark Ages, with the advent of Christianity (that is, Celtic Christianity, which was not under the control of the Vatican until the 11th Century) and later the attacks of the Vikings, the nation retreated somewhat into a more peaceful period that focused on learning, and began a tradition of literature. It was at this time that a large number of the ornate the Celtic crosses that litter Ireland and the West of Scotland were made, and it was also at this time that the Book of Kells was made in Iona, which had been invaded by the Hibernian Scots under the kingdom of Argyll. It was a Golden Age of learning and religion, which established an Irish nation whose influence spread from Oileán na hÉireann itself to Scotland and even northern England.

    Ireland in the early Middle Ages was a patchwork of medium sized Celtic kingdoms, under the nominal supervision of a High King of Éire, with its own legal system, Irish language and distinct culture. It was a culture which was plagued by tribal warfare, however, and a number of people had their eyes on the land and the riches therein. In the High Middle ages, namely the 12th and 13th Centuries, some English nobles were invited into Ireland by one of the Irish kings, in order to assist him in a war against one of his neighbours. The King of England, Henry II, visited Ireland not long after this to find that this assistance had taken advantage of the weakened Irish kingdom to launch a spree of attacks. It was in danger of becoming a full-scale invasion. In order to stop this from escalating into a new Hiberno-Norman dynasty outside English control, the High King of Ireland, Rory, was persuaded by Henry to hand over the eastern provinces as far as Meath and Waterford, in conjunction with a Papal Bull that mandated a reorganisation of the Church in Ireland (the Pope had noticed that the Celtic Church was not giving him very much money), to be coordinated by Henry. And thus Ireland came under the control of England.

    However, although Ireland was known as the 'Lordship of Ireland under the Kingdom of England', and the Normans tried to instill some of their laws and systems, the country also had its own parliament and, by the 15th century, the Normans had been thoroughly Celticised. Ireland entered a second Golden Age of relative prosperity and a continuance of Gaelic culture in this time. In the 16th Century, England (which had spent most of the past three centuries fighting with France and the Turks, and getting more and more rich) turned its attention back to the growing Hibernian menace; the Reformation had destroyed the Catholic Church in Britain, and this caused the beginnings of a schism to open between Catholic Ireland and its Protestant overlords. Indeed, there was a rebellion in Ireland, aimed at ending English rule altogether, which had it succeeded might have led to history taking a very different course, but it was badly timed, and the ensuing reconquest attempt by the English state succeeded. This time however, the island had even more bitter internal struggles, and the reconquest over the next centuries turned into a genocide. After the Tudors had reasserted control, and the Kingdom of England merged with the Kingdom of Scotland in the
    Union of the Crowns, the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (in particular the infamous actions of Oliver Cromwell) plunged Ireland into a Dark Age of subjugation, famine and depopulation.

    Britain has always had a strong connection with Ireland, since the introduction of the Gaelic language in Scotland and the monastery at Iona through the Scottish Wars of Independence which spilled across the Irish sea. Because of this, many moved across to northern and eastern Ireland shortly after the reformation, which helped to mark out Ulster as a seperate entity within the Irish nation. Unfortunately, however, many of these immigrants were Protestant, and this began the Sectarianism which lead to the Troubles. The final chapter in this story is of course the fall of the British Empire and the creation of the Republic of Ireland. Ireland had served Britain in her armies to conquer a fifth of the world, as well as to resist Napoleon in the early 19th Century, but after World War 1 the Empire was fragile. Seeing a weakness, and inspired by the surge in the idea of Nationalism, the Irish rebelled once more, this time successfully, and in 1919 the Irish Republic was born, followed in 1937 by full independence and withdrawal from British dominion. The Irish Free State had wanted to bring Ulster under its control also as part of the Irish Nation. Ulster, however, voted to become the seperate state of Northern Ireland. The persecution of Republicans in Northern Ireland, and the constant tension between Protestants and Catholics, erupted in the 1960s into the Troubles, with the formation of the IRA to support the northern Catholics and the Irish claim to Northern Ireland, and the UDF to defend the right of the Protestants to remain in Britain. The UK army was brought in to ease the violence, but it only served to exacerbate the Nationalists.

    In 1998, the Republic of Ireland withdrew its claim to Northern Ireland in the Good Friday Agreement when the Nineteenth Amendment to the Bunreacht na hEireann changed the claim from Northern Ireland being a rightful part of the Irish State, to it being simply a part of the Irish Nation, ie it states that Ireland no longer has any territorial claim to Northern Ireland. Despite this, the violence continues.


    Lord Rahl
    Lord Rahl, staunch Helios ranter has provided us with a different sort of article this week, one that encourages some introspection, and shows a softer side that I didn’t know the big guy was capable of. Joking aside, this is a very powerful piece and one which is sure to set you thinking.

    Rahl's Rants: An Unrant...Rant - Musings on God
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    This will be a bit different than my normal rants. Usually when I rant I do not spend much or any time thinking out my argument. I simply have an idea, sit down, and type away. But this time this rant will be different in that I have been thinking about the topic for a long time now, actually, for a few weeks. Bear with me in the length. Because I’ve had so much time with the topic, it will be a lot to absorb.

    Before I get into what I really want to talk about let me do some explanation first so that you can understand where I’m coming from. I was born into a Christian family in Texas and even re-dedicated my life to Christ when I was 17 at a Billy Graham festival when my family lived in Canada. I always had questions about my faith but they were not significant and more me trying to understand God and what I had to do to be a better Christian than doubts about my faith – although I did have those as well, just like anyone. But starting in my second year of my college career I began to doubt my faith. This came about mostly through meeting other people without my same faith, as well as becoming interested in other religions, and philosophy. I stopped believing in Christianity and had more of a Deist belief. Today I still have the same general belief but I am not exactly sure what I believe. I have no dedication to any certain belief so much to say, “Oh yeah, I’m _________.” I wouldn’t say that I’m trying to spirituality but I’m definitely thinking about it a great deal.

    My parents are still very religious and we’ve had many a conversation about Christianity, God, religion, etc. over the last couple of years. This is why my mother sent me the book The Reason For God by Timothy Keller. Keller’s purpose for the book is to first argue against some of the most often brought up questions, accusations, or arguments against Christianity, and second, to give some reasons for god, hence the title. I’m actually not done with it – I still have 50 pages to go – but I’ve written a substantial amount of notes on what I’ve read – not to mention the amount of thinking I’ve been doing – and so it’s been slow-going even though the book isn’t more than some 280 pages. While I disagree with some of the arguments put forth my Keller, I do find myself agreeing with some of his philosophical ideas or at least what he says makes me more genuinely analyze my own beliefs more than I have at any point. This is the best aspect or effect of the book. It makes the reader, if they’re being objective and honest about their feelings and beliefs, be meta-cognitive about their own beliefs. His way of making common sense, logical, literary, and even philosophical arguments significant while minimizing the age-old use of Bible verses and/or Christian rhetoric – which is a rarity – makes the reader think about their own beliefs as if they weren’t before. That is something few people, in my opinion, do. At least, this is what The Reason For God has done for me.

    With the insane electronic world we have today, information and opinions are rampant and instant. There is a wealth of knowledge at our fingertips (unless you live in China and then you wealth of knowledge will be filtered) as well as an abundance of internet users that now have the ability to say whatever they want to say without any social repercussions (except for the extreme). Like Visna’s sig explains in a lovely equation: normal person + anonymity + audience = total dickwad. Unfortunately, a lot of people on these forums seem to fall into this category or close to it whenever a debate over religion/God/spirituality starts up. Discussions 99% of the time fall into this pattern,

    Member A: “I believe in God.”

    Member B: “God doesn’t exist.”

    Member A: “How do you explain the meaning of life?”

    Member B: “I believe in a flying spaghetti monster.”

    Member A: *philosophical argument*

    Member B: *existential argument*

    And then that pretty much wraps up the length the discussion will go. Both parties argue too much in the black and white; try to argue with absolutes as if to win the argument. But how do you discuss something like God but actually argue for or against? If you’re discussing the meaning of life or something as complicated as God, religion, or spirituality then arguing whether or not these things exist or not goes nowhere. Discussion of said topics shouldn’t center on evidence or proof so much. If you say that God doesn’t exist because science hasn’t proven existence of God, that doesn’t actually answer anything. That would be using an external source to judge your belief. A question to ask yourself in order to understand what you believe would be, “Do I base my beliefs on empirical evidence alone?” That would be an internal source to judge your belief and one that is not so easily answered. That would be meta-cognitive thought. It is one thing to think about something and then say what your belief is, and it is another to think about what your belief is and why you have it.

    It is my belief that too many people rely on what they were brought up with. I think it is obvious to many that the culture and family we are brought up in influences our beliefs greatly. If you are born into a Christian household then you will most likely retain those beliefs for the rest of your life. The same can be said for an atheist household. But even then it is not so simple a journey. Often when we grow up and become more independent we will change our beliefs because we feel as if we have to be our own person. So we stray from what we originally believed. This is fine but I feel as if too many people change for change’s sake instead of truly analyzing their beliefs and eventually (hopefully) decide what makes the most sense for them.

    We believe in what makes us most comfortable. This is why we argue against others or other beliefs so earnestly, because we do not want our comfort in what we believe to be taken away. No one wants to be uncomfortable. A Christian does not want to believe that God does not exist because they do not want their purpose in life, their salvation, and eternal life gone. An atheist does not want God to exist because they were comfortable with science’s order to the universe, rules for everything known, and its ability to explain or solve anything and everything. But with the existence of God their comfortable belief in science wouldn’t be able to do everything they thought, and worse yet, they would be judged for their beliefs. I’m not sure that our beliefs have to be comfortable. Our lives are constantly uncomfortable so why should our beliefs be the same? Over the last year or so in my logical, philosophical, and spiritual contemplations, I’ve had some difficult times trying to figure out what I believe and make sure what I believe makes sense as much as I can make of it. It is my hope that more people put more time into analyzing their own beliefs. Too often discussions of religion/God/spirituality look like it is a battle of talking points that look arrogant and ends up being less of a discussion and more of a dick-waving match. We don’t figure out the intricacies of a subject by attacking each other’s beliefs.

    Finally, I wish to reflect on one idea that came up while reading The Reason For God. I often wonder about the meaning of Adam and Eve and their decision to eat from the Tree of Knowledge in its symbolism of good and evil, God’s plan, and much else. One night as I thought about it I came to the realization that, if it were not for Man’s sin and our acceptance of a world without God, us the human race and everything we are would not be the same. We can all agree that evil is…evil but if we did not have evil we would not know what good is. Life is so fragile, Man can be so cruel, but what about the achievements of Man? If Man never sinned would we ever look to the moon, our solar system, and beyond and feel the urge to go out there? Where would be the drive to do better, to explore, to achieve if we did not know of evil things. Humanity knowing sin has brought us the arts. What is more important to humanity than the arts? Where would our great works of Shakespeare with his famous tragedies be if we did not know sin? They wouldn’t exist. What about our music or art? They wouldn’t be here. This is a reason why I believe the Christian God may not exist. If sin is so evil in every way, why has its effect brought Man the greatest things we know?

    Something to think about…


    That’s all from The Helios for this edition. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to my writers for putting up with my pestering and also putting aside some time during summer to actually write this publication. I think we all owe them a great deal of thanks.
    Last edited by Jom; August 20, 2010 at 02:04 PM.

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

  2. #2
    Legio's Avatar EMPRESS OF ALL THINGS
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Chlοëtopia
    Posts
    43,774

    Default Re: Helios 52 - Back in the USSR

    Excellent work, JAM.

  3. #3
    karamazovmm's Avatar スマトラ警備隊
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil, São Paulo
    Posts
    9,639

    Default Re: Helios 52 - Back in the USSR

    excellent work irishron

    The very ugly forgive, but beauty is essential - Vinicius de Moraes

  4. #4
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Re: Helios 52 - Back in the USSR

    What is this? I don't even...

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

  5. #5
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Helios 52 - Back in the USSR

    4 MORE YEARS! 4 MORE YEARS! 4 MORE YEARS!

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  6. #6
    karamazovmm's Avatar スマトラ警備隊
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil, São Paulo
    Posts
    9,639

    Default Re: Helios 52 - Back in the USSR

    Jam for everyone!

    The very ugly forgive, but beauty is essential - Vinicius de Moraes

  7. #7
    Copperknickers II's Avatar quaeri, si sapis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    12,647

    Default Re: Helios 52 - Back in the USSR

    Quite. Thanks for the intro Jom, and well done to my fellow writers on some great pieces.
    A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.

    A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."

  8. #8
    LuckyLewis's Avatar Loutre
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    3,957

    Default Re: Helios 52 - Back in the USSR

    Nice one Toad & co. An excellent read.
    Muh signature is so out of date all muh pictures died.

  9. #9
    Katsumoto's Avatar Quae est infernum es
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    11,783

    Default Re: Helios 52 - Back in the USSR

    Great issue guys. Especially enjoyed Rez's analysis of one my favourite TV shows ever; will definitely look out for all those technicalities the next time I watch it.
    "I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof."
    - John Adams, on the White House, in a letter to Abigail Adams (2 November 1800)

  10. #10
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Re: Helios 52 - Back in the USSR

    Loving the content staff back-patting session going on here. Thanks for all the kind comments.

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

  11. #11
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Helios 52 - Back in the USSR

    Wait, males actually like Friends?

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  12. #12
    Katsumoto's Avatar Quae est infernum es
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    11,783

    Default Re: Helios 52 - Back in the USSR

    Yessir, many do. In fact I know very few males who don't like Friends. Interesting conundrum.
    "I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof."
    - John Adams, on the White House, in a letter to Abigail Adams (2 November 1800)

  13. #13
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Helios 52 - Back in the USSR

    Personally, I don't know one guy who likes Friends. None of my friends do and I've never heard of guys watching it, let alone liking it. I've always considered it a chick show, although I never watched more than a few minutes of it at any given time.

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  14. #14
    The Hedge Knight's Avatar Fierce When Cornered
    Artifex

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    5,875

    Default Re: Helios 52 - Back in the USSR

    All hail the Hypnotoad and associates! Kings of the Helios for another issue.

  15. #15
    Katsumoto's Avatar Quae est infernum es
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    11,783

    Default Re: Helios 52 - Back in the USSR

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Rahl View Post
    Personally, I don't know one guy who likes Friends. None of my friends do and I've never heard of guys watching it, let alone liking it. I've always considered it a chick show, although I never watched more than a few minutes of it at any given time.
    Different strokes for different blokes, I suppose. Here in the UK it's probably one of the most popular shows on TV, liked by both men and women.
    "I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof."
    - John Adams, on the White House, in a letter to Abigail Adams (2 November 1800)

  16. #16

    Default Re: Helios 52 - Back in the USSR

    Well done guys! A good read.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Rahl View Post
    Personally, I don't know one guy who likes Friends. None of my friends do and I've never heard of guys watching it, let alone liking it. I've always considered it a chick show, although I never watched more than a few minutes of it at any given time.
    Same in Australia. All the guys watch City Homicide and RUSH here.
    Son of Major Darling | House of Caesars | Content Writer | My Workshop | Moderator

  17. #17
    karamazovmm's Avatar スマトラ警備隊
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil, São Paulo
    Posts
    9,639

    Default Re: Helios 52 - Back in the USSR

    we all watch true blood here

    The very ugly forgive, but beauty is essential - Vinicius de Moraes

  18. #18

    Default Re: Helios 52 - Back in the USSR

    Yay the article on Friends

  19. #19
    Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Athenai
    Posts
    33,211

    Default Re: Helios 52 - Back in the USSR

    Jom, I have never liked Metternich and all he stands for. After reading your article, I like him even less!

    About the Friends article...

    I think the analysis of the characters is accurate for the earlier seasons, but the characters themselves changed quite a bit later on, and were made very generic and predictable.

    The way I thought of the characters by the time Chandler and Monica got married, each character had been reduced to its most base comedic element.

    Chandler simply became to source of comedic relief with his "witty" jokes, whose quality seems to be all but gone.

    Monica simply becomes someone with OCD, and this is portrayed much more than it was earlier seasons where her character actually did things besides complain about how pans were out of order and provide humor through her desire to organize folders.

    Ross and Rachel actually seemed to have matured as characters over the course of the series, though it seemed Ross' only comedic input was either a joke about his divorces or a joke about lesbians.

    Joey's character changed from being a lady's-man with average intelligence to an idiot in the style of Peter Griffin, and his being a lady's-man was something that was no longer actually shown but something which became assumed, with his own character itself becoming whimpier IMO.

    Phoebe's character didn't change much though.

    My own two-cents, of course.

    I personally preferred Seinfeld.

  20. #20
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Re: Helios 52 - Back in the USSR

    Metternich was an interesting character to say the least. He, like Alexander, felt that he was saving Europe but Metternich was much less deluded than Alexander and realised that Austria was in a very dangerous position and could well lose out to Prussia if she did not switch sides quickly enough. He had a very inflated sense of his own importance and if you read some of his private correspondence which he sends to hit wife and various lovers, he really believes himself to be the most important man in Europe, and therefore the world. One can't help but admire him for his cunning, though. He grasped the situation entirely, which is something many others failed to do and therefore lost out.

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •