On certain subjects, I'd like to express my opinions.  

Change Agents 

Change Agents are individuals who do something, or create something. That something may be big as: a new religion, a new state, a new mathematics; or something small such as a new teaching method. So over the course of human history, we've had many Change Agents. Some examples of big Change Agents are:  Mohammed in founding the Islamic religion, Moses in creating the Israeli nation, and Newton in discovering Calculus. Examples of lesser Change Agents, but still significant, are: Marva Collins, a teacher, in developing an improved method for teaching children how to read; and W. Edwards Deming for formulating a New Philosophy for managing organizations.

All Change Agents have similar personalities, that is to say, they are part warriors (this is where  the word Changewarriors comes from), part doctors, and part creators. As warriors, they seek out to destroy: superstitions, prejudices, injustice, ignorance, and waste. As doctors, they sometimes inoculate organizations by attacking the status quo, and corruption; thereby weakening it for a short time until it  recovers to becomes stronger and healthier. Occasionally Change Agents step in to bring institutions back to its founder's good laws and principles. All Change Agents are creators. They all create something new: new laws, a new philosophy, new order of things, new methods, new systems, new art, and new knowledge such as a new theory of reality i.e., Bell's Theorem.

My Philosophy

Essentially, my philosophy is: LIFE IS GOOD. Life is a gift. You get only one chance, so don't waste it. Instead, enjoy the wonders of this little blue planet, and try to make something of your gift. This is it and you're it!

Here is an abbreviated list of things that I esteem and believe to be esteemable:

This is only a brief list. I could go on and on, because there is much to esteem.

Roman Legacy I

It is very strange thing for me that the Romans accomplished so much and yet we know so little about them. It is as though they were our ‘black sheep’ in the family, and the less said about them the better. What we learn about them comes mostly from bible studies and movies that represent them as blood thirsty, villainous sort of people who whiled their time away in debauchery and other evil, sinful doings. It is too bad for us that we get such a slanted view of history because the Romans were, in fact, just the opposite of popular opinions.

In Roman Legacy I, I attempted to explain the reasons how and why citizens of a small town with fewer than ten thousand inhabitants became the rulers or the custodians of most of the know world. It was a "new global world order", and so remarkable was their achievement, it hasn’t been matched by anyone. In part II, I shall try to explain, the best I can, how and why the Roman Republic began to decline. The period of time I intend to cover is from about 300 BCE to say 47 BCE when Julius Caesar was assassinated.

For a long time the Romans took every precaution to assure long life for the republic. They were watchful of anyone suspected of buying his way to power that might lead to tyranny. For example, during one famine there was a very rich man, Spurius Maelius, who opened his granaries to dole out food to the plebs and thereby gain political favor. The senators were so suspicious of him a dictator was appointed to have him killed. In other words, people were condemned when they sought greatness and influence by private means.

Romans also understood more than a little about human nature. This is why they elected two consuls and limited their term of office to just one year. Usually one consul was sent off to head an army, while the second attended to business at home. A one-year term presented the consuls opportunity to do something significant in a limited time, and it offered many Romans to acquire very good leadership experience, but not so good that they might begin thinking of employing armies for their own purposes. In addition, one year was not long enough to corrupt most men – in the short time consuls couldn’t establish a network for corruption. In this manner, the Roman Republic had many trained men ready and available not only to take charge of armies, but also fill lesser but important positions. And the Romans had no qualms of accepting subordinate positions. They, however, didn’t like anyone who tried to succeed himself for a second term as consul or tribune. Even a virtuous and accomplished consul might be run out of town if he tried to stand for reelection.

Another arsenal to stave off corruption was establishing the censor position. The censors, I think there were two of them, of course took censes. They also kept a book on who was a senator and knight, and had the power to take a person off the list for bad un-Roman like conduct. In other words they had the power of big brother. Originally a censor was appointed for a five-year term. Then realizing this was a mistake, because in that time a censor himself would easily become corrupted, a consul shortened the term to eighteen months.

The Romans of the republic era, with remarkable wisdom, build into their systems and customs many safeguards. These safeguards served them well for more than three hundred years. But slowly the wheels of the republic began to wobble and finally come off.

Basically what lead to the republic’s decline and demise was success, the vastness of the Empire, and human nature.

As I wrote in Part I, in the beginning everyone was poor. Even the ‘rich’ noble families were not very rich. People were content living a simple life that was based on close-knit families, supported by religious devotion and loyalty to the state. It was the best example of Plato’s ideal, just state. In a just state there can’t be those who are filthy rich while the masses are very poor. Even the display of wealth was scorned. For instance, in 275 BCE a consul was removed for having too much silver tableware. Unfortunately a hundred years later their attitudes towards wealth and display of wealth completely changed.

As I mentioned, soldiers had to provide their own armor and weapons, and they were not paid for soldiering. Also, most of the booty, if there was any, was turned over to the city. They didn’t take much booty or slaves because they wanted the conquered people to join-up with them as allies and provinces of Rome. Indeed, in the beginning poverty was a great asset because it allowed the Romans to keep their strong virtues, and maintain a cooperative spirit among all classes of people.

Little by little, booty and tax collected from their provinces brought in much wealth. In addition, from military expeditions, especially to Greece, generals and soldiers learned of sumptuous life styles where people had much more than necessities. Some soldiers took a liking for lavish life styles and decided not to return home. Very soon, the generals and consuls started to take and keep more and more booty for themselves. They also started to return with more slaves to work as domestic labor in homes and estates outside of Rome. Increasing slave labor eventually caused unemployment for the masses so that; as the rich became richer, the poor became poorer and a source of discontentment and unrest.

Some of the conquered land was confiscated by the state. This was usually prime property and the rich were very quick in obtaining favorable leases upon which they built grand estates that were worked by slaves. Eventually there were several hundred thousands slaves working the estates. Most were treated so poorly they undertook several serious rebellions.

As the rich become richer, they become less concerned with civic duty, honor, honesty and the other virtues that originally characterized Romans. They became greedier, less moral, and lost much of their humanity. Roman governors in the provinces began to demand higher taxes and administered harsher punishment. Rich people who don’t have to worry about necessities become more insecure, believe it or not, and look for every means of increasing their wealth – enough is never enough. They also find life boring, unfulfilling. The women folk especially become bored with life so they turn to drugs, alcohol, sex, and a licentious life style, which, of course, is not very good for maintaining first-rate cultural values or keeping families together.

Virtue in the political arena also began to decline. Where once only the most qualified stood in election for a consular and other high positions, men with lesser qualification, but with money to buy elections, sought the top positions. Eventually, and I don’t know the exact time, instead of electing best-qualified candidates, they began electing candidates with the backing of the rich and powerful. Not unlike the current process of electing presidents in the United States. Even then, I don’t think the Romans would consider candidates who were draft dodgers, or draft-avoiders.

Women became less content with their lot. They wanted greater freedom of expression, so they began to wear tons of jewelry and spend much time with their hairdressers and at the public baths where, as they say: "anything goes". Also they began to compete with other women in display of ostentation and to see who could throw the most lavish party. More and more of the housework and rearing of children would be relegated to slaves. Slaves, as one would expect, could imprint on the children minds un-Roman-like values. The winter of their discontent materialized when the wives in Rome conspired to murder their husbands. When the conspiracy was discovered, many husbands were murdered, and in many homes where husbands still lived, poisons were discovered. All the wives who partook in the conspiracy received harsh punishment.

With all the success Rome was achieving and all the gold ending up there, it was the ultimate ‘gold rush’. I imagine all the gold acquired by Darius of Persia, and which Alexander the Great confiscated, probably found its way to Rome. (The moderators on a TV series about Alexander said there was more gold in Darius’ palace than at Fort Knox.) With all the gold, apparent prosperity and liberal policies towards immigrants, Rome became a powerful magnet that attracted all kinds. Mostly, I expect, it attracted the scum from all over the known world. As you might imagine, Rome grew exponentially. And without adequate planning for sewers, water, garbage disposal, etc., Rome, where the poor lived, became a giant cesspool figuratively and literally, and a breading ground for disease, misery, discontent, and vice. The rich moved out of the city to build big beautiful homes on the surrounding hills.

In those days there was no adequate communication network, banking system, or infrastructure such as roads, water supplies, and food storage facilities. And there wasn’t a bureaucracy set up to manage all this stuff. In other words, with the vastness of the republic, Romans bit off more than they could chew. In addition, for some strange reason, the senate was either unwilling or incapable of addressing the many problems that arose. They merely reacted to crisis, which became more frequent and more severe as Roman territory increased.

Before fighting broke out between Carthage and Rome, Carthage was greater and wealthier than Rome. After the first Punic War, 242 BCE, Rome became the leading power in Western Mediterranean. (Wars with Carthage were called Punic because these people were originally from Phoenicia. It is said they moved to North Africa rather than face Moses’ general Joshua who had the reputation of killing everyone he engaged and defeated.) Shortly afterwards, the Carthaginian, Hannibal, invaded Italy and gave them much trouble for 20 years. I mention this point in history because after Hannibal defeated the Romans at the Battle of Cannae, 216 BCE, in order to rebuild a big army they relaxed the rules who could serve. For the first time slaves were enlisted as rowers. Also, Hannibal killed many Italians and destroyed their farms that later rich Romans acquired for bargain prices, while the former independent farmers were forced to move to the city. Finally, the Romans invaded Carthage to defeat Hannibal and render Carthage harmless.

Rome in 197 invaded Greece and took control over the whole territory. After all these wars and victories Roman commanders became increasing arrogant and ruthless. Gone was the good old ‘Roman humanity’. When a few Greek cities tried to rebel, in 146 BCE, the Roman army razed the ancient city of Corinth and sold all inhabitants into slavery. In the same year Romans razed what was left of Carthage, in the style of Alexander the Great, even though it posed no threat. (Of course, later on when Rome had fallen, the Carthaginians did rise again. We know them as Moors.) This was a new policy that spelled out a clear message to others: submit or be annihilated. Clearly such a policy requires more men in the army who had to serve for longer times. This additional service time along with increased brutality had to affect men when they tried to return to normal lives with their families. And all this happened when Romans became less generous in granting citizenship, especially to Italians. At this time there were more Italians in the Army than Romans. Plebs were still not eligible to serve because they didn’t own property and they couldn’t afford the cost of arms.

Around this time a new class of entrepreneurs developed called the equites. Many equites became rich and powerful. They also became notorious for greed and corruption. One of their services they undertook was tax collection. Because they kept one-third of the collection, they turned to extorting the peoples in the provinces and then bought immunity from governors through bribery. And since every important position was held by a senator, there was hardly an honest senator to be found anywhere.

Well there was at least one honest senator. His name was Tiberius Gracchus. In 133 BCE Tiberius was elected tribune and proposed some major land reforms. He proposed a law that would limit private leases of state land to 300 acres. The land in excess of 300 acres was to be returned to the state and redistributed to the plebs in 20-acre parcels. In this way many of the plebs would become landowners and therefore eligible to serve in the army. No way would the now very rich, powerful and corrupt senators allow this to happen, so they lead a mob that killed Tiberius and some of his followers. This was the first time in many centuries violence entered Roman politics. You might take note that cruelty was rising everywhere, even at home. However, the question of land reform did not go away.

About ten years later Tiberius’ younger brother Galius was elected tribune and proposed even more radical land reform. He too was killed. The senators then executed 3000 supporters without a trial. The low morality of the Senate was finally in the open. The only way the nobility thought they could maintain dominance was through violence. The nobility no longer wished to cooperate. Their will now was to dominate not only the other classes in Roman but also peoples in the provinces. At this point of time the Senate still controlled Rome’s armies. (Very soon this too was to change.) The atrocious action taken by the Senate split the city into two parties: populares, which sounds like our democrats, and optimates, representing the rich like our republicans.

While the city was on the brink of civil war, serious trouble began to brew in the provinces. When people are mistreated, most will take action in the form of guerrilla warfare. The problem was; Roman soldiers no longer fought with valor as they once did. Roman armies began to be humiliated. Most of the soldiers by now were from the provinces and not citizens, because as the senators became more corrupt they became less generous in granting citizenship to allies. As a result, it became increasingly more difficult to recruit. One general, Gauis Marius, took the unprecedented step of recruiting an army of landless volunteers and equipping them with arms. He also made promises of land in exchange for their loyalty. This was the beginning of professional soldiers. Furthermore, these soldiers were now loyal to a general, and not to Rome. Of course the senators where still not about to give up any land, no matter what – not even to deserving soldiers who had nothing when they quit soldiering. Consequently, the generals began marching on Rome to fight Romans. In 91 BCE there was a general revolt called the Social War whence the Republic of Rome drew its last breath.

Fighting continued in the provinces and amongst the Romans until Julius Caesar was assassinated, and then there was more fighting between the Romans. Caesar Augustus, a grandnephew of Julius, came up on top to become Rome’s emperor. I think the best thing he did was to kill 300 senators. If there is a cancer in a body, social body in this case, it must be purged. Of course he had no choice. If he hadn’t killed those that opposed him, they would have been plotting against him. I imagine killing of the senators freed up much land that could be redistributed to supporters. Maybe, finally a few soldiers and some plebs were awarded a bit of land. Augustus reestablished some sort of civility and order, and under the rule of emperors Rome survived for another 500 years with many ups and downs. There were periods of good times when the Romans picked an emperor based on good reputation and talent. Nearly all emperors who inherited power proved to be duds, and nearly all were terminated. (Why is it so? Those sons of good or great men are nearly always corrupted. Corrupted by whom? By their mothers?)

About 1000 BCE around the Mediterranean Sea, which was the world to the people living there, there were two types of tribes with two different traditions of fighting wars. There were the hunting tribes and the planters. Hunting tribes became goat herders. As they moved about and entered new neighboring territory, they were inclined to kill everything that drew a breath. The Hebrew tribes were wandering goat herders. When organized by Mosses, they were so fierce in fighting they completely eliminated from the face of the world several tribes said to be greater than themselves. The Moore, who were settled in the territory now known as Syria, upon learning the Hebrew were heading in their direction fled to North Africa rather than face the army led by Joshua. (Of course, once in North Africa the Moore made war on the people already living there – probably killing most and enslaving the rest.) The eleventh Commandment of the Hebrew god Yahweh might have been: "Kill everything not Hebrew". It was indeed ‘survival of the fittest’. However, with this warfare tradition, it would be impossible to establish a working relationship with your neighbors, or acquire and hold any territory other than what could be conquered and defended by your own people. So when their war making capability weakened, or their neighbors put together a much larger army, the Hebrew and other herding tribes became prime candidates for assuming the position of anvil because if you were not strong enough to be the hammer you were destined to serve others.

Planters preferred to remain in one location if they could. To defend themselves, they began to establish towns and build walls. They still made war on neighbors, but not with the mindset of killing everyone. In Darwinian terms, I think it was a way of keeping population growth in check. Because, there were numerous warring expeditions originating from many sources, some towns began forming alliances with other towns in order to fight off marauding war parties that seemed without end and coming from every direction.

The Romans, of course, were planters. And when they established a republic they took special pains to design it for security and long life. As a matter of fact in 444 BCE they sent a delegation to Athens to study what the Greeks were up to, and then appointed ten former consuls to come up a constitution that came to be know as the Twelve Tablets. The ten consuls took their time in writing a constitution and almost ruined a fledging republic because once the ten assumed power; the Romans had a hard time in getting rid of them. This is why they were so particular in limiting terms of office to one year. (They either instinctively knew or learned that: all men, given the opportunity, are corruptible!)

By Greek standards, the Romans were ‘country pumpkins’, not very sophisticated and without evidence of culture – much like the Americans when they were establishing a new republic. Yet, by the fact the Romans went to Greece to study "best practices" in government showed they possessed considerable wisdom.

For a long time Romans didn’t have professional fighting men, nor did they hire mercenaries. Their armies were made up of farm boys who after plowing and seeding in the springtime went on army duty for training, or to participate in some campaign. Every campaign was lead by a civilian, a consul. As I mentioned, a soldier had to be a landowner, he had to provide his own arms, and he wasn’t paid. In other words, he was a patriot. His officers made certain he was the best-trained and best-disciplined soldier in the fields of battle. Just to make certain of outcome, the leaders saw to it they outnumbered the enemy and all the men believed that the gods were on their side. In this manner Roman warriors were ardent and fought with valor. Being ardent means fighting with much enthusiasm at the beginning of a battle. Being valorous means fighting hard at the end of the day or when it appears the outcome is questionable. In addition, soldiers were taught never ever turn tail and run from a foe because that is when a soldier is most vulnerable. As a result of this training there were not as many casualties as you’d expect.

They planned for short battles with quick outcome. Just as quick they negotiated terms before the enemy turned on themselves to ruin property and cause havoc on the civilians. Romans also took care not to display bad conduct towards the enemy and they took particular care not to despoil women or temples. Nothing is more offensive to man as when the victor despoils his wife and daughters. Conversely, nothing else will make a man more grateful when the victor doesn’t muck with his womenfolk, or disrespect his gods. Quite unusual conduct for those times and the time that followed, don’t you think? Did I mention these Romans were smart and understood human nature? They didn’t want enemies to become eternal enemies. For that would be exceedingly stupid, would it not? Essentially they treated enemies with respect – sufficient love so that the defeated would choose to become an ally who might fight willing under a Roman flag, and would someday choose to become a Roman citizen. (Do you think any would be empire builders, since the time of the Roman Republic, learned any lessons from the Roman experience?)

The Romans profited from wars because they had an excellent business model, and because they were people of good character whose lives were guided by the same divinity that guided the Athenians when they ascended into greatness, Apollo. Apollo is a Greek god that represents all the good there is in humanity: temperance, sincerity, courage, honesty, beauty, and connectivity with nature. This god guides us through uplifting art and music, and informative dreams such that midst all the suffering and strife we may discover life as sublime and worth experiencing.

Although they had an excellent business model, their story almost ended when in 390 BCE the Gaul sacked Rome to leave it in ruins. The urge was to leave for someplace better. However, they decided to stay and rebuild. Fortunately while they were busy rebuilding Rome and reinventing their warring methods, the Etruscans in the North and the Greeks to the East decided to fight amongst their own cities. This gave Romans time to regroup and restart from the beginning. Wiser and more focused, they proceeded with their acquisition plans.

As it happens to everyone, with the exception of only a handful throughout all of history, when they become fabously successful and have proven they are "the best", the best became overbearing and begin making mistakes, or as I call it; acts of hubris. For example, after defeating Carthage in the first Punic war, they applied such harsh penalties the Carthaginians had to rearm and wage wars in Spain in order to raise the sums required by Rome. This eventually led to Hannibal’s invading Italy to cause Rome much grief, and it led to the second and third Punic wars. In addition, after the Greeks invited Romans to help them against the Macedonians, and Rome made allies with the peoples in this region, the Roman occupying forces behaved badly and treated these people with so much arrogance that some Greek cities joined together against Rome. The Roman army reacted with excessive cruelty. They looted and destroyed the ancient city of Corinth and sold all its inhabitants into slavery. This is certainly not the way to build trust or win over people to your side. In fact, this sort of hostility creates partisans who never give up resisting foreign domination. And that is what happened: Instead of creating a mutually agreeable partnership, the Romans now decided to dominate through use of force and fear, which in a long run is a loosing and costly proposition. You must know: No one has ever bettered partisans by employing force, cruelty and fear. That is to say: No one has ever defeated the human spirit through the use of force, cruelty and fear. In fact, by these means it makes the spirit more resolute. This is something that all would be empire builders and conquerors had not learned, and which the Romans by 150 BCE had forgotten.

By 150 BCE most of the senators were corrupt. Senators could not make laws but they had powerful influence and they held every position of importance. Instead of dedicating their lives to the well-being of the republic and its citizens, they turned to accumulating wealth for themselves and living a ‘sweet life’. They also turned away from Apollo and his principles in favor of Dionysus whose festivals center on sexual licentiousness that unleash most savage instincts of sensuality and cruelty. (Dionysus was Alexander the Great favorite god as he and his louts roamed about in a drunken stupor pillaging and destroying cities for no other reason than for sexual arousement.) As you might suspect licentious life styles, increasing use of alcohol, and whatever else they took or did to put them into a state of ecstasy took its toll on Roman society, especially its venerable family traditions. In addition, the Senate failed to prosecute corrupt bureaucrats because most were of the senatorial class. Consequently, Romans became untrustworthy, and their former predisposition towards humanity was replaced with cruelty. Obviously the Romans now were different people with values opposed to values of their founders.

To be continued.

Miscellaneous

Copy of my letter sent to George W. Bush on 17 September, 2001.

Dear Mr. President,

Not withstanding all the sage advice you’re getting, if you are planning to use violence to fight terrorism, you will fail. I guarantee it. This is simply because the use of force, violence and brutality has never defeated the spirit of any enemy. All it does is make him more resolute. And more violence begets more violence.

Instead of vengeance why not try to Join-Up® with those you now name as the enemy, Bin Laden et al., in a partnership to initiate a Holy War on our common and pervasive enemies such as: poverty, ignorance, bigotry, etc? Yes, propose a modern version of the famous Marshall Plan. Call this one: the Bush Plan. So instead of destroying what is left of Afghanistan, and causing its people more suffering and pain, propose to help rebuild it so that one day it stands a good chance to become a responsible and respectful citizen of this globe. This alternative is cheaper, more effective in reducing terrorism, and will save many innocent lives lost through "Collateral Damage", which is an evil as great as terrorism. I believe Collateral Damage, war on innocent civilians, is not acceptable to "moral" societies. Collateral Damage is terrorism, and for the first time we’ve learned that it hurts.

There is no doubt in my mind that if you should choose to follow my suggestion, it will be a historic moment in history. And you will be known forever as one of the great leaders of humankind. On the other hand, if you follow the violence route, you are certain to fail, and possibly take this world back to the Dark Age.

I think your intention of waging war on terrorism sounds noble. But remember the old saying: "Every path leading to hell starts with good intentions". Fight instead the underlying causes of terrorism, which I believe are: poverty, ignorance and a perception of over bearing, hubris, by some. A little bit of humility, as you mentioned in your campaign speeches, would go a long way at this time. Humility and humanity are attributes of great people. Fighting terrorism with terror is unproductive, not smart, it won’t work, and it will hurt. Believe me it has been tried many times before.

Yes, I know: the FBI will want to make a physiological profile on me. This is easy to do. Check me out on my Website:( my address). My two essays: Roman Legacy I and II are sort of relevant to this situation. I am definitely not a Christian, but I am quite certain what Jesus would advise you if he could, and does advise through his teaching.

Respectfully Yours

Mike Prewarski

P.S. I plan to publish this letter on my Website, if you have no objections.

This essay is not so much about Julius Caesar as it is what I learned about him and about the world at that time. I learned much from a book he wrote, now titled: The Works of Caesar. This book is not only about the Gallic Wars (58 BCE to 50 BCE) and the Roman Civil Wars that followed (50 BCE to 48 BCE), which he lead, but also about: his character and leadership ability, and the character of the Roman soldiers at that time. He also describes, in a few brief paragraphs, the nature of Gaul and German people he encountered. Furthermore, he provides an insight as to how the continuous massive migrations that took place throughout our human history. This book is very well written, very interesting and very informative. I think it is utterly fascinating to learn history from a man who made history; a genuine change warrior.

For new and old readers you might want to refresh your memories as to political realities of the Roman Republic at about the time Caesar was born, circa 100 BCE. After the Republic conquered Carthage and Greece, it became the dominant power in the world. Up to about 130 BCE, rule of the Republic was more or less balanced between the optimates, representing the aristocratic patrician families, and populares, representing the rest of the citizens. Membership to senate was by appointment, and hence, almost all senators came from the rich aristocratic class. Senators picked consuls, two of them each year, who were like kings or presidents. Consuls were in charge of armies and proposed laws that were often ‘suggested’ and sponsored by the senate. Both parties elected members to a general assembly that had the power to enact laws and approve appointments made by the senate to high and low magistrate positions. (Since the poor masses were most numerous, they were well represented in the general assembly). The general assembly also elected tribunes, two of them for a one-year term, who could also propose laws and lead armies; however, tribunes had the unusual power of veto. In other words, each of the two tribunes could veto any proposed law or appointment.

This first republican form of government worked very well and accomplished much in 300 years. Rome rose from an inconsequential small and overlooked farming community to a super power. However, for a republic to function it requires: 1) Leveling of classes – not much separation between the rich nobiles, exemplified then by their land and slave/serf holdings, and ordinary citizens, which includes small farmers, tradesmen, shopkeepers, etc. 2) Steadfast and honest people, centered around families and strong family values, and with a sense of duty to serve their whole community. 3) A well-founded written constitution that supports and maintains conditions 1 and 2.

Throughout history of mankind there have been many states that had ascended to great power and culture. However, the story of their decline and ultimate ruin is nearly identical. Without any restraints on how much land (or wealth) a person or family can hold, a certain number undertake to increase their holdings into large estates. They first buy up land from less able neighbors. Then they resort to other means, legal and fraud, in acquiring more land. Such as lending money to neighboring farmers knowing full well they won’t be able to pay back the ‘loan’ so that the farmers and their families are indentured as slaves to the rich landowner and their lands confiscated. Usually at this time taxes are so high that many small landowners are unable to pay, so by means of foreclosure more land is acquired. Ultimately, ordinary citizens are reduced by repression and fraud to destitution and slave status. Once it was ordinary citizens, and in the case of the Romans, small landowners who served valiantly as soldiers in citizen armies. But now citizens are less willing to serve and fight for causes that bring benefit only the rich ruling class who by now have taken charge of government, military and all powerful magistrate positions. Eventually, enemies, external and internal, surround the rich so that the only recourse left for them is to hire mercenaries. Mercenaries being strong and with vigor either turn on their masters or go to the side of an attacking, usually more barbarous, invader to destroy what was once a great state and an advanced culture. This afore mentioned ‘passion play’ has repeated many, many times. It is as though no one learns from history or history as written by James Henry Brested, THE CONQUEST OF CIVILIZATION, was and is ignored in schools and universities.

Julius Caesar was born at the time when the rich were very rich and in the process, by whatever means possible, of enlarging their wealth. Corruption was ramped especially in the provinces where the appointed governors teamed up with the private tax collectors, called equities to extort as much taxes as they could from the general public and where most of the taxes were pocketed by the governors and tax collectors. Important positions went to those who handed out the most bribes to politicians (senators). In addition, since the distance to the provinces was great and it usually took longer to settle uprisings, and since Rome was running out of men who had a bit of land and therefore eligible to serve in the army (without pay), Rome had to recruit young men (still from the landowner class) who would serve as professional soldiers for as long as sixteen years. The only problem was when these soldiers returned they found no home to come to because either their farms were neglected to be unproductive, or their farms were confiscated by tax collectors and absorbed into large estates. So many soldiers moved to the city and to join others on the dole. There was an attempt to redistribute land and limit the acreage one man could hold. Even a law was passed to this effect. However, the senate raised a small army and killed all land reform supporters. For the first time one faction, the senatorial optimates, used violence against other Roman citizens.

Julius Caesar was born to a prestigious Julian family. He also had a famous uncle, Gauis Marius, also a statesman and general who had much influence on Julius’ education and training. Marius campaigned successfully in Spain, Africa and Gaul. In Gaul he stopped the migration of two Germanic tribes, Teutons and Cimbri. For campaigns into Gaul, Marius had to resort to recruiting and arming landless volunteers; some of them were freed slaves and criminals, who had to agree to long military service. For their service and loyalty to the general who recruited them, Marius promised his recruits land and pay. Thus the legacy of professional soldiers was born. By 100 BCE he was made consul for the sixth time and was considered the savior of Rome. Marius, like Caesar much later, was the leader of the populares. However, Marius developed a hatred for Sulla, a capable general who headed the optimates and who was once his subordinate. (You’ve got to keep your eye on younger ambitious subordinates, don’t you?) Sulla became Marius’ nemesis and forced Rome’s illustrious ‘savior to flee Rome. Marius then joined an uprising started by Cinna, another bitter opponent of Sulla, marched his army on Rome, which capitulated, and then Marius and Cinna took revenge by killing many aristocracy. All this was done while Sulla was fighting wars in Asia. Sulla returned with his army to defeat the uprising forces and proceeded to slaughter many who had supported Marius and Cinna. Sulla put out a hit list declaring open season for hunting, killing and confiscating properties of 120,000 Romans. Julius Caesar was on this list, but somehow escaped recrimination. Caesar was ordered by Sulla to divorce his first wife Cornelia, Cinna’s daughter, but refused to do it. (He married, by my reckoning, when he was sixteen.)

All this that I have written is to give readers some idea how things were at the time Caesar was growing up. There were wars to be fought outside Rome and much civil strife from within. On top of everything the Italians erupted in a general revolt known as the Social War because they were discontent of Rome’s failure to grant them citizenship and not rewarding them for military service. There was also a general uprising by the slaves who were lead by Spartacus. None the less, Caesar must have had an excellent education. When he was fourteen he was appointed (by Marius) to flamen diolis, an archaic priesthood. Learning something about the mysteries of priesthood and man’s relationship to spiritual fodder, probably helped Caesar in dealing with soldiers of his time who were very superstitious. At twenty-two Caesar went to Rhodes to study rhetoric for five years to become a very persuasive speaker, second only to Cicero, Rome’s most famous speaker. (As I’ve written many times before: "a person’s rank, status and position in society depends directly on how persuasive you are as a speaker".)

We learn of Caesar’s character from Plutarch, who wrote the following: "Caesar implanted and nurtured high spirit and ambition in his men first by gracious treatment and by bestowing awards without stint, demonstrating that the wealth he amassed from his wars was not for his own pleasure and enjoyment but a carefully guarded trust for rewarding gallantry, with no larger share for himself than accrued to the soldiers who merited it, and secondly by willingly exposing himself to every danger personally and shrinking from no hardship. His courting danger was not surprising, in view of his ambition, but his patient endurance to hardship was astonishing, for he did not seem robust. His frame was spare, his skin soft and white, he suffered from migraine and was subject to epileptic seizures – a malady which first attacked him, we are told, in Cordova (Spain). Yet he did not make delicate health an excuse for soft living, but on the contrary his campaigning a remedy for delicate health. He fought his weakness with exhausting marches, simple diet, spending night after night in the open, continuous exertion, and so kept his body impregnable to disease. Most of his sleep he got in carriages or sedan chairs, bestowing even his rest to activity. When he rode to garrisons or cities or entrenchments by day a slave trained to write from dictation sat at his side, and a soldier with a sword stood beside him. He drove so rapidly that he completed his first journey from Rome to the Rhone in seven days."

As a man Caesar was ‘a complete package’. He was a statesman, a very good writer, one of the best orators, the most capable general ever, an excellent psychologist (he had to be because there were campaigns when fortune seemed to be against him and yet his men although they may have been on the brink of despair, had confidence that the outcome would be favorable), and by reputation, a good lover of beautiful women. He was compassionate towards enemies and was always ready to give them the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes however, when treachery was uncovered, he could be brutal too. I think he must have been a competent engineer because he had to build towers, forts, camp fortifications and bridges in a real hurry. And on a couple occasions he designed ships used in defeating the Gaullian Navy, and ships used for transporting troops and equipment across the English Channel. Like I said, he was a complete package, which begs the question: was there in all of history a man equal to Caesar?

Here are Some Things I Learned Julius Caesar

How Tribes Migrated. From a great book, THE CONQUEST OF CIVILIZATIONS, written by James Henry Brested, I learned how from two regions two distinct people migrated. One was the southern grasslands, now desert, from which the Semitic parent peoples migrated into the region called the Fertile Crescent. From the northern grasslands (area between the Caspian and Black Seas, the Indo-European parent peoples migrated into the regions of Asia Minor and throughout most of Europe. The Fertile Crescent is a crescent shaped region that is anchored at one end where the Tigress and Euphrates Rivers meet and the other end is the fertile delta of the Nile River. The crescent faces the Arabian Desert. Repeatedly a more barbaric tribe or tribes would move into already a settled, more desirable area, defeat the people living there and destroy whatever culture the original settlers had. Then the new conquering immigrants would start developing a new culture and broadening their scope of control and influence that resulted in an empire and an advanced cultural. Then, after some time, another barbaric migrating tribe from one of the two wellsprings mentioned would overwhelm them and so on.

For example, the Hittites (one of the tribes mentioned in the Old Testament and ordered by Yahweh, once a Hebrew god, now elevated to the universal God, for extinction) moved from the region between the Caspian and Black Sea to settle in the northwestern part of the Fertile Crescent we now call Asia Minor. They eventually established a big empire about the size of Texas and a remarkable culture by 2000 BCE. I think the Hittites also discovered how to make iron and steel, and distributed implements made of steel throughout the known world. The Hittites fought the Egyptians for a long time for the leadership of the world until both were nearly exhausted. Eventually the Hittites and Egyptians began to cooperate and intermarry amongst the topmost families. Under the leadership of the ablest soldier in Western Asia, around 1400 BCE, the Hittites established the greatest power in that region. In addition to their military prowess, the Hittites made significant original contributions in art, architecture, literature, and code of laws. Attributed to king Hattusil, he wrote a humane code of which two hundred paragraphs have survived on clay tablets. What is noteworthy about this code is the fact that for murder, capital punishment was not employed. (Did Napoleon write a code better than or equal to the one written by an ancient Hittite king, or even as good and as wise as written by an ancient Babylonian king, the famous Hammurabi? I doubt it!

Well what happened to the great Hittite civilization and mighty empire? Were they utterly and totally destroyed by Hebrew as ordered by Yahweh, now God? Nope. The strange thing is; no one knows what happened to them. They just vanished. Some speculate that since they were in the way of barbaric tribes migrating west, one of them simply annihilated the Hittite while on rout to their destination. It could have been the Greek tribes on their way towards the Aegean region where they settled. How can migrating tribes have so much force? Stay tuned.

The first problem faced by Caesar in Gaul was to turn back the migration of the Helvetii, a big and powerful Germanic tribe. The leaders of the Helvetii decided to move a more favorable place of living. Therefore they made plans for their decisive move. First it took them two years to harvest enough grain to sustain people and animals for at least three months while on route to their destination. At the same time they trained a large well-equipped army. They also build many transport wagons. And there must have been other preparation made for crossing the Rhine River. When it was time to move, they burned down all buildings and destroyed any excess foodstuff. There was no going back for them, they thought. Naturally when they started to move across Gaul everything was destroyed. Like locust, all previous settled life and plant was sweated clean. Somehow other tribes joined in on the trek because when the Romans caught up to them and they surrendered to Caesar after many battles, there were a total 368,000 souls in the caravan of which 250,000 were Helvetii. They also had 92,000 fighting men left. Caesar ordered the Helvetii to return to their original lands and he said, by his count, 110,000 did return. Some settled on the over run land, while many probably died of starvation.

Without Roman intervention, the Gaul could not stop the Helvetii. And if the Helvetii succeeded, it would have opened the door for other Germanic tribes to move freely on Gaul. In effect, Caesar and Marius, Caesar’s uncle, changed the course of ‘natural’ history. Was it a good thing? I don’t know, but I do know that the French, every July, ought to get on their hands and knees to give thanks to the Julian family for saving Gaul for the French. Without Roman intervention, most of the Gaul tribes, and therefore the people we call French, would be extinct. Today, we would be asking: "what ever happened to the Gaul civilization?" (Actually after the fall of the Roman Empire in Europe, a group of Germanic tribes took the name 'Frank' from from the word 'enfranchise', which meant to be free of the Romans to vote for their own government, and it was the Franks who conquered Gaul, rename Gaul as France, rule that region for a long time until the Gaul and Frank people assimilated. Indeed, the Roman only delayed the inevitable because those tribes held back to the east side of the Rhine River, eventually crossed the Rhine and conquered all of Europe including Spain, Italy, North Africa and Great Britain.)

Germanic tribes being isolated from the rest of civilization were latent in cultural development. This is a polite way of saying they were still barbaric, perhaps like I imagine the Greek tribes were around 2000 BCE when the Greeks had not yet migrated to the area now called Greece. It is safe to say the Germen then had very different institutions and customs than the Gaul or Roman. They basically dedicated their lives to hunting and warfare, much like our native Indians at the time Columbus discovered America. They enjoyed a very Spartan, egalitarian life style and wanted to keep it that way. To insure their people remain hardy, strong and vigorous they, as Caesar wrote, "are inured to toil and deprivation from infancy". This is the sort of people who have in the past gone on to migrate into a more advanced, more cultured area to totally despoil it and its people because the civilized people have grown used to luxuries and easy living where corruption is also ramped. Usually civilized people grow soft and society becomes fractionalized, there are great differences between rich and poor, hence they are less able to unite and stop migrating barbaric hoards.

Here are some of the steps taken by the Germen to maintain themselves hardy and robust. First, no one could own a bounded parcel of land. Secondly, each tribe was allotted a small parcel and each year they had to move to a new location. This was intended to keep people for building big comfortable permanent homes. Also such custom prevented the more powerful leaders from accumulating large holdings and becoming corrupt. Thirdly, they encouraged brigandage against other tribes. This was thought to be very good training for young men and a correction for laziness. Brigandage was at one time as popular pastime with the young as baseball and football is now. All barbaric people enjoyed this once approved pastime. This is to say, all our ancestors participated in brigandage.

Here are some more customs and beliefs: They believed that delaying sex helped a young man grow tall and strong. Sex before the age of twenty was considered sacrilegious. Germen were taller and stronger than the Gaul and Roman, and much feared. It was required of them to extend hospitality to all strangers. They had no need for priests "to preside over ritual, and no inclination to sacrifice". This is good, I believe, because they weren’t in the sway of a pervasive god: Madness. Madness is the principal God of any people addicted to religion; as we still are and the Gaul once were. They recognized, rather than worshiped, a few gods: Sun, Fire-god, and Moon.

Well these hardy and unencumbered people eventually ended up ruling the western world. To begin with, Caesar’s own personal guards were six-hundred German cavalry. Not only was the German cavalry awesome in battle, it could be trusted. (Caesar was always troubled by deception and treachery coming from people he helped or were his friends.) Over time, when the Roman Empire was declining, the Romans resorted more and more to hiring Germen mercenaries in their armies until the top generals were Germen. Eventually Germen generals became very powerful to decided who would be Rome’s Emperors and for how long. Finally, by the nineteenth century, German families, the Hapsburg, Windsor and Romanoff purty much ruled the world. Well then what lead to decay of German dominance; culture and political? Nietzsche says it was booze and Christianity. Why not? Drunkenness and Christianity are very compatible.

Gaul, we now call them French, were interesting people with interesting and strange customs. At least I call their customs strange. They were addicted to religion, religious rites with sacrifices and predisposed towards torture and burning of things. Above all, they enjoyed burning people in a special way. First they weave a figure resembling a person out of wicker. Then they would stuff a person inside and set it ablaze. Victims were usually criminals, but if criminals weren’t available for burning, they found some excuse to burn innocent. Funerals were usually big affairs where after much ceremony; the corpse was burned along with it’s favorite belongings including animals. Caesar speculated that at one time the whole household was burned when the master died, including servants, slaves, dogs, and horses. If a man died before his wife, she was often suspected of skullduggery by relatives. She then would be tortured until she confessed, of course, and burned. Another strange custom was burning all the booty captured in war. They would make a large pile of the goods, which I have to say were probably mostly tools for making a livelihood because most people were very poor and set it on fire. If someone was caught holding back some loot for himself, he would be tortured and burned.

The Gaul had another custom that I find strange. Sons could not approach their fathers in public until they were twenty years old, old enough to serve in armies. Where as in Rome, sons and probably daughters too, accompanied fathers just about everywhere. This is how Roman children received their education: by observing and participating in their parent’s affairs. If the father belonged to the senate, for example, children would accompany him to watch and hear the deliberations. Career Day was not a one time yearly event like it is for some of our daughters and sons; Career Day was every day for Roman children. In this way Roman children learned what was important to learn in order to succeed in society and they learned responsibility, duty and citizenship. I think Romans had the best education system every devised because they always had a surplus of outstanding leaders and citizens trained in a plurality of skills and knowledges. Listen folks, as individuals the Romans were not bigger or stronger than their adversaries and yet Roman armies often defeated armies with five to ten times greater in number.

Before Romans became preeminent, the Gaul were quite successful in military conquests. Some of their tribes crossed the Rhine River and settled in what was to become known as Germanic territory. They invaded as far east as northern Greece and Macedonia and made their presence known. They, around 400 BCE, invaded the northern part of Italy and I think almost utterly destroyed the Etruscan territories. I believe some Gaul tribes immigrated to this region with the intention of permanently settling there. Emigrating tribes are like locusts to people settled in the area because like locusts in their foraging for food, they destroy about everything and wipe out settlers by slaying or starving them. In 390 the Gaul went as far south as Rome where they burned it down. After looting the city, they returned to settlements in Northern Italy. Romans rebuilt Rome. Later defeated the Gaul and had them return to their homeland. To insure such events would not repeat, Rome took for their own territory the southern section of Gaul and named it Provence – meaning this was to be a Roman province with the Gaul living there becoming Roman citizens.

According to Caesar factions were the rule in Gaul not only in all states and cantons and districts, but also in households. Leaders of factions were chosen on the basis on who could best protect the followers against oppression and fraud. Tribes, of which there were about fifty in number at the time when Caesar came to Gaul, were grouped into two big factions. One was lead by the Aedui tribe and the other by the Sequani tribe. Within each tribal faction there were strong and weak tribes. The strong tribes made war on the weak to make them dependencies. That is, the weak tribes had to pay taxes and comply with other requests by stronger tribes. The tribes with the greatest number of dependencies and who made alliances with outside powers such as powerful German tribes or Romans, ascended to the head tribal position.

Within Gaul there were only two classes "of any account or enjoy any distinction": There was the Knights who by now owned most of the land and fought in wars. The other was the Druids who were organized like the Catholic Church. However, the Druids not only officiated divine worship and regulated sacrifices, they were also magistrates who judged all disputes, civil and criminal, and fixed awards and penalties. This is probably why judges still wear black robes. Once a year the Druids assembled at a sacred spot to hear litigants from all parts of Gaul. Litigants had to abide by their decisions and sentences or they would be excommunicated, which made them untouchables in society. No one was to approach or talk to excommunicated persons, nor could such persons ever appear as plaintiffs in court or hold any office. The Druids paid no taxes and they were exempt from serving in armies. Since the Druid had status, prestige, power, and because priests seldom experienced hunger, or were without good wine to drink, it was easy to recruit young men into their priesthood.

The masses had no political clout and were treated like slaves. As Caesar writes, they "exercised no initiative, and never taken into counsel". Although culture level in Gaul was rather low, yet they were in an advanced state of development because by this time most of the masses were, as Caesar wrote: "crushed by dept or heavy taxation or oppressed by powerful individuals, bind themselves in slavery to the nobles, who exercise over them all the rights masters have over slaves". (This process, from freedom to slavery, was repeated many, many times throughout history of civilizations. Greed is why civilizations decay and die. You can see it happening, today and before your eyes.) If we replace the Druid priests with Christian priests, Gaul’s repressive model of society after the western part of the Roman Empire collapsed was the model adopted by all of Western Europe including Russia. In France, this model lasted until their Revolution where most of the masters were slaughtered and a Republic began to take root that was similar to the original Roman Republic. In addition, a few years earlier a Republic in America, also based on the Roman Republic, was being established.

CONCLUSION: Julius Caesar was one of the few very great men of history. After all there is a month named after him, July. But, I think, his grand nephew Octavius exceeded him and there is month named after Octavius, August. Except for Napoleon, no one since these two titans comes close. Well, if Caesar was so great, why was he done in? Caesar’s downfall, as one Italian explained to me, was due his Italian nature. Caesar was not ruthless enough to be a tyrant, and he ‘put on the dog’ too much. That is, he went around in a robe of Pontifex Maxims, which he was entitled to as head of the state religion, wore a crown, held a scepter, and used the title imperator. Now that was going too far, especially in a Republic where everyone hated kings more than the Iroquois hated Gene Autry.

Altogether Julius was too soft on his enemies and friends who turned against him. The senators who assassinated Caesar were those he previously pardoned. This sort of turning-the-other-cheek doesn’t work for a want-to-be emperor. Octavius, on the other hand, when he defeated all opposing forces killed 300 senators (and probably their families). Then he restored the republican institutions while reserving control over the armies and all the state revenues. In effect he had the power of an emperor, but declared he was an ordinary citizen. And I think he didn’t go around wearing a priestly robe, a crown, and holding a scepter. Thus he escaped the wrath of the both the aristocracy and the masses, and enjoyed a long life to institute many reforms his grand uncle planned. However, he didn’t address the problem of succession because there is no good solution to this problem. Sons of great men hardly turn out be have the same state of mind and talents of fathers. Instead, sons turn out to be more like their mothers. If the mother is foolish, her sons are likely to become fools. Daughters, on the other hand, are a better bet to be like their fathers. And grandchildren are more like their grandfathers in smarts and character. Only the ruling monarchs and emperors have not yet figured this out. (October 13, 2002)

Believe it or not, but most engineers and scientists throughout the world, most means 99% of them, don’t receive an education at universities; they receive specialized training to do particular jobs that are in demand. Consequently, when they get a degree and begin work in their respective ‘professions’, they are considerably ignorant and naïve of the ways of the world. They know little or nothing about behavior of people, of organizations and of societies. In addition, for the most part they are amoral and unguided by a code of ethics. So they work on what they’re told to do without much or any consideration and thought about the consequences of their work on others, or the environment. In other words, as human beings they are incomplete. In fact, they are more like automatons, more like mechanical things, or smart robots, that perform tasks for industry and government, and don’t ask questions.

With little doubt, all the bad stuff (Such as global warming; pollution of lakes, rivers, streams, air and food supply; proliferation of weapons of mass destructions; inefficient use and destruction of natural resources; abridgement of our freedoms; etc.) happening in and to our world for the past fifty years can be connected to the training engineers, scientists and businessmen receive at universities.

The young men and women who choose to become engineers or scientists are smart. I would guess they represent the top 10% of the general population in intelligence. They are also inclined to study and work hard. Believe me, when I attended University of British Columbia you had to work hard to attain a degree in Applied Science. Even the brilliant had to work and study hard. I remember after one particular semester I sat for twenty-two exams, some days I wrote two exams, and I had to pass everyone of them. Talk about pressure and strain on my emotions. I and my class mates had to be well prepared and in top physical and emotional condition to stand up to such an ordeal. And that’s how I felt about my experience at university. It was more of an ordeal than a place of learning. Never the less, I did learn some technical skills relevant to my chosen field, Mechanical Engineering, but also I had to learn a lot of stuff that I didn’t need and didn’t use, like surveying for example. However, there was a whole lot of important and relevant stuff critical to my success as a ‘professional’ engineer and my success in society that was omitted from the curriculum. In addition, I gained very little wisdom, especially with regards to the problems we encounter when dealing with people and coping with organizational structures and cultures. Furthermore, the right side of my brain, the intuitive or creative part, was left dormant even pushed aside by a lot of analytical junk. This (addressing only the left or rational side of the brain), by the way, is akin to the operation performed on a young woman’s vagina where she can no longer enjoy sex. Developing the left side of the brain and not the right causes an unbalance psychologically, which handicaps persons for life. This unbalance, I believe, makes persons less creative, less imaginative, dull and very dangerous to society and the world.

Have you noticed, as I have, that although those who enter the study of engineering and sciences are very bright and capable, they seldom rise to become captains in industry or heads of state, and the very few that have, usually don’t distinguish themselves! How come? Furthermore, they seldom, if ever, are involved, or take the leadership, in trying to reform any social injustice. For example, for many years engineers have worked as expats in foreign third world countries ignoring the abuses they saw. It took a twelve year old Canadian boy to bring our attention to the plight of child labor in India and elsewhere. How come? In addition, while engineers and scientists are very willing to design such diabolical weapons such as cluster bombs, napalm bombs, biological poisons, etc., it was a woman, probably an arts major, who took on the cause of banning anti-personal land mines that eventually mane thousands of innocent children after hostilities cease. Without the willing participation of amoral engineers, scientists and political leaders who also lack imagination and empathy, there would not now be weapons of mass destruction. (I can’t even phantom that people can be so cruel, so heatless and so unimaginative as to order, fund, development, produce and deploy all these weapons of mass destruction; all standing by, on the ready, to eviscerate every living organism on this planet. These people, believing themselves to be ‘good’ people guided by religious values are in fact such grotesque monsters they surpass all previous monsters in the history of civilization).

For the sake of humanity and this planet, I recommend that all engineers and scientists who are about to matriculate partake in a ritual, akin to the ritual taken by all Canadian engineers, and swear an oath similar to the Hippocratic oath taken medicine students: "In my work, I swear not to harm or purposely cause suffering to living things, plants or animals, nor harm the environment; and I dedicate my life to the purpose of making the world a better place than when I found it."

Today some scientists do stuff that they thing is good. Most of the time they do far more harm than good. What about all those ‘good’ scientists running about the planet and shooting darts into rumps of animals and then attach collars with radio transmission devices around necks of targeted victims? Does this sort of activity actually assist wild animals in any remotest possibly way? I think not! When I watch such activity on television, I think only I’m watching people exhibiting gross disrespect for animals, and exemplify arrogance and stupidity of the scientific mind – you can’t do harm when searching for knowledge, which is an idea, an evil one, originated by Socrates (For example, if a person passed by the Museum of Alexandria in ancient times, he could hear the screams of animals as scientists dissected them while they were alive. And were the two atomic bombs dropped on Japanese cities scientific tests?). What I’d like to do is to hunt dart-shooting scientists and shoot darts into their disrespectful asses, and attach a collar around their necks that’s impossible to remove, except at my pleasure and with promises they get real jobs. Who funds such ignoble activity? Why our glorious universities, that’s who. When it comes to wasting resources on useless and harmful activity, our universities excel. These institutions are expert generators of pure entropy. The custodians of areas designated as natural preserves should take measures to keep out poachers and scientists. What wild animals require is space, lots of space, and to be left alone. By the way, I thought of Steve Erwin as a jerk and the recipient of universal justice.

More than in any other time in history, we moderns of the west when we reach adulthood become very self-centered, unfeeling, insensitive, disrespectful, arrogant, vulgar in our taste in art and music, unimaginative, seriously deficient in common sense, incapable of intelligent conversation, and unable to use the reasoning part of our brain, which is now almost a vestigial organ from lack of use. We really do become sad cases and nadir examples of humanity – more like tin-men and women without hearts but covered in human skin. The thing is, when I interact with infants and children still in elementary school I am always amazed with their wholesomeness and completeness as human beings. In fact, they are so different from adolescents and adults, that I see them as living gods. So how are these little gods and very endowed humans transformed into something else, which some might call evil, or not quite human, Frankenstein like, creatures?

To try find possible answers to my question, we might look back in history to the period of time called Europe’s Age of Enlightenment. Our Age of Enlightenment almost co insides with the life of a Frenchman known as Voltaire; thus, this period is sometimes referred to as The Age of Voltaire because he was the leader of other enlightenment men and women (LUCES) and the principal source of energy of this fantastic period of time. However, I want to extend this age to include Newton, Cromwell and many other Luces who came after Voltaire, 1650 to 1850. During this age these Luces emancipated man’s mind from the prison imposed by religions and set in motion the increase of knowledges (science and engineering), and extended and opened new horizons for the renascence in art, music, literature and drama, that began in Italy, around 1450. They were also the cause of political and economic revolutions that began with the French Revolution. By the way, it was the revolutionary French National Assembly that emancipated the Jews. For the first time the Jews had equal citizen rights, which was the single most important event in Hebrew history. It was Napoleon who emancipated the Jews throughout Europe. (So Napoleon is the single most important man in Hebrew history.) Anyway, as I see it, it all started with a few inquisitive individuals who began to notice that although the behavior of men was nearly completely under the control of Christian religion for twelve hundred years, and will of God was in control of all things that happen, the behavior of all men, including the clergy, remained intolerably bad and evidence of evil was everywhere as to suggest the Devil was in charge. Apparently the mythical Kingdom of God did not come, and there was no hint that It was coming. In addition, for twelve hundred years it was forbidden to use our reasoning part of the mind. Furthermore, we were ordered to accept everything written in the Bible as the Word of God, and the absolute truth. Just thinking about the nature of Nature, not to mention writing anything contrary to what’s written in the Bible, was enough to sentence you to torture and death. Worst of all, you’d go to hell to suffer unmentionable cruelty for all eternity. Well, despite the effects of the inquisition, the torture and various ways of murdering suspected heretics, some began to use their reasoning power anyway. Some individuals began to suspect that religion, as a prime social institution, wasn’t a source of good; on the contrary, religion was an infamy and an incarnate of evil. Religion, in fact and by evidence, didn’t improve man’s behavior or morals, rather it fostered onto mankind more evil. Even today, religion, as one of societies’ principal socializing institutions, continues to transform nearly perfect, god-like humans, into Frankenstein-like creatures.

Voltaire, and the group of other enlightened men and women called the Philosophes, began to think that Reason, Knowledge and Understanding is a better way to better people and the way to a better the world. The ideas of these men who got the support of great political leaders of that time (Fredrick the Great of Prussia, Catherine the Great of Russia , Madam Pompadour of France who actually ruled France, and Joseph II of Austria), proceeded to open the gates to a new world. The Philosophes also tried to vanquish religion and replace it with Reason and Science.

However, another influential writer who lived at the time of Voltaire, Jean Jacques Rousseau, wrote that reason alone will not get the job done any better than religion because reason without feelings of compassion towards fellow man, and nature will produce the same crappy results as religion, and maybe worse. And, of course, Jean was right, and is being proved right. People without feelings, or without hearts, are monsters! Jean argued that people are born instinctively good. I agree. In addition, it is societies’ institutions which corrupt and transform us into sub-humans, or beings as I’ve described at the beginning of this discussion.

Societies’ institutions, were formed to do us some good, but in many cases morphed to corrupting us. Some of these corrupting institutions are: religions; school systems including universities; justice systems – police, courts, prisons, and laws; governments; spying institutions; entertainment enterprises; welfare organizations, professional sports; and media. For example, religions were originally organized to fulfill our spiritual needs, but instead became tools of the powerful to control the vulgar folk; and then morphed into centers of power and business franchises looking for means to enrich themselves with earthly stuff such as gold and land swindled from the poor. Here’s what you can take to the bank: any institution that based on fraud and is opposed to science, art, and reason is a poison to the soul. Instead of spreading "love thy enemy and your neighbor as thyself", they somehow encourage and inspire bigotry, hatred, intolerance, savagery, and terrorism. On our planet, which state is today the biggest terrorist state in the world? I would guess it is the state with the greatest store of weapons of mass destruction, which, coincidently, also has the largest number of religious citizens.

Since in this essay, I am concerned with universities and the education they provide, especially to engineers and scientists, I’ll restrict my comments to this institution of enlightenment which educates but also corrupts. As I mentioned, my university that was like many universities in North America, provided me with an education intended to make me smart, but not too smart. Following a model suggested by Fredrick the Great. What our governments want is that we become little cogs performing some productive and needed work; marry; raise a family; join the middle class; pay taxes; and, serve in the military when required. Not a bad model for me because I enjoyed engineering work. However, I wasn’t as effective as I could have been because much critical knowledge was omitted in my technical curriculum and no knowledge was provided in the area of human/social behavior (this especially was a serious handicap). In addition, I could have been the best engineer in the world, which sometimes I thought I was, it did matter in the least if I didn’t have good written and verbal skills of rhetoric, and knowledge of salesmanship in order to sell my ideas, and to sell myself of my true worth. I was lacking in these skill, and these too were serious handicaps. They robbed me of my potential and effectiveness, and were limiting to my career. Furthermore, because I didn’t received any education in handling money, once I joined the middle class and burdened myself with a mortgage and the cost raising and educating future tax paying citizens (three of them), there was no path out for me from the middle class. After I reached the age of fifty-five there was only a path downward. Well, that’s the story of my life and the story of many graduate engineers and scientists.

In spite of the incompleteness and inadequateness of my university education, I was able to fill some of the gaps through a variety of interesting engineering assignments, continuous education (I got two Master’s degrees, one in engineering and one in business, and I took many individual university level courses), and by keen observation I learned much about human/social behavior that increased my effectiveness at least five fold.

Then, right at the end of my career, 1988, I accidentally learned about the ideas of W. Edwards Deming. I studied Deming so thoroughly that as his disciple, I came to know Deming better than Deming knew Deming. In studying Deming, I ran into Genichi Taguchi who raised quality and knowledge of Quality Engineering to a higher level still. Hence, all that I learned about modern management philosophy and how engineering students can raise their effectiveness ten fold above my level when I graduate in 1952 is outlined in my book, Change Master. However, if universities include, as mandatory, three years study in liberal arts that includes philosophy, sociology, psychology, rhetoric, history of civilization, comparative religion (a lá Joseph Campbell, or read my book, IS THIS IT?), a thorough grounding in statistics (to include design of experiments), introduction to poetry from around the world (especially poetry from the days of the Islamic Empire, which I believe is the best ever and compatible with a scientific mind because most of the best poets from that era were also scientists), I think they would graduate outstanding engineers and scientists as well as wholesome happy human beings destined to become captains in industry, and very capable and wise leaders of society. Then, I believe, the world will begin ascending towards another pinnacle in the story of civilization. The first pinnacle of Western Civilization was achieved in the period from 90 to 180 CE by the Roman Empire under the leadership of several great enlightened emperors who spread Roman Law and Hellenic civilization throughout the vast Empire.

As part of my effort to make this world a better place than when I found it, I’ve written a letter to the head of Mechanical Engineering at University of British Columbia. I hope it has some influence on the design of his engineering curriculum to produce not only more effective engineers, but better citizens of this magnificent planet, which is in serious need of some tender loving care. A copy of this letter is attached to this essay. If you agree with me, pass the Word to other university deans and department heads throughout the world.

I want to add a word of caution to the educators of engineers and scientists. They must act immediately to change and improve the education of engineers and scientists along the lines of my suggestions because the Doomsday Clock this month ticked closer by two minutes to the hour of Midnight. We are now only five minutes away from the doomsday, when all life on this planet will be destroyed. Our situation is critical and getting worse, and we all know the reasons why! In fact, it may be already too late to save ourselves and this magnificent blue planet. So dear educators don’t sleep well and always keep in you consciousness these two words: TICK, TOCK.

Improving Hybrid Drives

Vehicles equipped with Hybrid Drives essentially covert the kinetic energy of the vehicle’s forward motion into potential electrical energy, which is stored in a large battery, that is used as mechanical energy (generator becomes a motor) to aid the engine when the driver chooses to accelerate. Hence, in stop and go traffic Hybrid Drives are very useful and do increase the miles per gallon of fuel consumed. On open roads Hybrid Drives are a hindrance because they add weight to the vehicle and the increased weight will lower fuel mileage, decrease the vehicles maneuverability and increase tire wear. And they are expensive.

However, since the invention of the Otto and Diesel internal combustion engines for propelling vehicles, all vehicles primarily used a single thermal cycle where the efficiency is limited to a minor portion of the available fuel energy and where most of the energy is wasted to heat the atmosphere. For modern engines only less than 30% of the available energy is used to do useful work for accelerating vehicles and to overcome friction of moving parts, rolling tire friction and air resistance. The overall efficiency is about 20%. About 10% of the energy is radiated to the atmosphere while about 60% of the energy is let out through the exhaust. Until today there has been no serious effort by engineers, especially Mechanical Engineers, to recover this wasted energy as though it would be impossible to do. And what the hell, consumers, legislators and executives of vehicle design and production are quiet satisfied with an overall 20% efficiency.

Back in 1978 when I began thinking as to how some of the wasted energy can be put to good use, I wrote a patent entitled Multi-Compounded Combustion Energy System and submitted to the US Patent Office. The patent office sent me a copy of an article that appeared in the Popular Science magazine, Jan. 1976, written by E.F. Lindsley, entitled Bottoming-Cycle Engines. Mr. Lindsley describes in detail the efforts of two engineering groups attempting in a very practical way of recovering some of the wasted energy and putting it to useful purpose – i.e. increasing the gas mileage of vehicles. One group consisted of H. R. Chapman and associates of Chapman Engines, Intl., Inc., which attached an Orbital Rankin cycle engine, a couple of heat exchangers, and some plumbing to a small Ford Pinto engine. The second group was made up of Thermo Electron (Waltham Mass.), Mack Trucks Inc., Barber-Nichols Engineering, and of ERDA who was the sponsor. This group attached a two-inch turbine that was driven by the diesel’s exhaust and attached directly to the engines power train through a 20 to 1 gearbox. At an opti