Friday, December 4, 2015

In Commemoration Of The Latest Attack

                                                    AMERICAN JIHAD
September 11, 2001

By thousands kill’d
Our hearts were fill’d
With sufferings and terror
As mad-eye’d men
In depths of sin
Sought “Heaven’s Virgins” for their murder.
And murderers more
In countless store
Cheer’d on their evil in the name
Of Allah and Mohammed’s fame
As though all one—the very same.

You who live in filth of loathsome lair,
Who teach your children that evil’s fair,
Who kill for marriages (insane) in Heaven
(Aye, seventy-two of them);
You who treat your mothers as things unclean,
And likewise your own sisters, lovers, deem—
Will you in Heaven hide their faces?
Will you in Heaven beat them with metal braces?
Will you in Heaven treat them as things,
While you, with Allah, do sup like kings?
O, Evil Eye of stupid mind
To think by evil you’ll Heaven find!

O weep mankind I pray
The “Moslem” Nazis are on their way,
They starve for cruel death,
Would steal the infant’s breath;
They’re not afraid to die
They’ve nothing left to live for
Except to court the Virgins of War
And murder innocence thereby.

Shaheeds, I swear, would rather die
Were there no Allah nor a holy sky.
What’s there for them to loose thereby?
For they have naught,
By none are sought,
Save but to serve, as faggots for the fire:
Death feeding Death: their Master’s desire.

O, ye good Muslims who honor God
Why turn your eyes unto the sod
When Evil stands in front of you?
Much will you come, I prophesize, to rue
That Evil in the midst of you,
If you these horrors sanction
And silently won’t mention
Depravity’s Ascension.

O, “Christians” too, I know
Have hidden evil in religious show
Who can forget the “Christian Nazis,”
Those feasters on Insanities.

Is Mohammed no more?
Bin Laden reigns instead?
The one forbid offensive war,
The other murders innocents abed!
Aye, even moderates proclaim
Jews have no right to live (the same
As they, whom Allah Himself has made).
Into fanatic’s hands you’ve play’d
If murder of “Jew!”
Is Allah’s Due
To you.
First, though,
You know

The evils of others
Do not our own excuse.
All men are brothers,
But monsters feed on murders to amuse.
Bin Laden says the world is split in two
The Faithful, the Infidel,
With Jihad’s call he would fools woo,
In truth he’d send us all into his Hell.
The Faithful and the Infidel:
To him the same,
To murder in the name
of Allah.
Death his food, blood his drink,
All the world in flame he’d sink.
A Moslem cleric did say it best
(Who knows the sins of East and West)
Who was not afraid the truth to tell
“The terrorists have sold their minds unto the Devil”

O hear!
Our dead they cheer,
Our pain they jeer,
They celebrate in Palestine.
For all the world they would have hear:
“Israel is ours and never thine:
Do this all
For Allah.
O, poor Afghanistan,
You sold your mind to the Teleban.
And Muslim nations who do abjure
The horrors of evil that do now appear,
Listen, you yourselves are his most wanted Victims:

Muslims prospering in Allah-given freedoms,
Who look upon their mothers, sisters, lover’s faces
And see that Allah their Beauty graces
More beautifully than any sight to see,
Save Heaven’s throne of Majesty.
Ah, nothing ‘s so hateful to the Evil Ones,
Than that Love prosper among Mohammedans,
Jews, Buddhists, Christians,
And, all of those as well,
Who are not yet Mohammedans
nor yet Infidel.

by Eric Miller, Oct. 23, 2001

Wednesday, December 2, 2015


LORD IGNOTO: Comments On His Times
The Errors of Democritus: From, The Arte of English Poesie
©Eric L. Miller, Dec. 2, 2015

[Below is excerpt from AEP, BK II: 2:8:43] Original text only slightly modified, word here or there, sentence breaks, etc. Editor/Author,E.L. Miller comments in parenthesis [ ].

When I wrote of these poetic devices and ciphers, I smiled with myself, thinking that the readers would do so, too—and many of them would say, that such trifles as these might well have been spared, considering the world is full enough of them. It is a pity men’s heads should be fed with such vanities as are to none for edification nor instruction. Nor, I say of moral virtue, or otherwise concerned for the common- wealth. To whose service (say they), by the way, we are all born, and not to fill and replenish a whole world full of idle amusements.

[He is smilingly aware that people regard activities such as the foregoing about creating devises and ciphers, discussed in detail elsewhere, and such games of creating poetry. And, of course, that wasting time on such things shows little regard for moral virtue and the good of society—to which we are all born and to whose service, we are told, we are obligated. They don’t want us to fill the whole world with such junk].

To which sort of reprehenders, (“critics”) being either all holy and mortified to the world, and therefore esteeming nothing that savors not of Theology, or altogether (for the) grave and worldly, and therefore caring for nothing but matters of politics and political arguments—or all given to thrift, and passing for none art, that is not gainful and lucrative, as the sciences of the Law, Physics, and Merchandise.

[Our critics and judges are either “all holy and mortified to the world” and so only care about Religion, or others caring for nothing but politics and political arguments. They all care only about “their economy”, their thrift, and don’t give a dam for art, “for none art”—because that won’t make them money, can’t make a buck off that, or what you get out of the business of being in the business of Law, Science, Business].

To these I will give none other answer then refer them to the many trifling poems of Homer, Ovid, Virgil, Catullus and other notable writers of former ages, which were not of any gravity or seriousness. Indeed, many of them were full of impudicity and ribaldry, as are not these of ours. Nor, for any good reason in the world, should have been. And yet those trifles are come from many former centuries unto our times, uncontrolled or condemned or suppressed by any Pope or Patriarch or other severe censor of the civil manner of men. For in all ages, they were permitted as the convenient solaces and recreations of man’s wit. And as I cannot deny but these conceits of mine be trifles: no less is this true that all the most serious studies of man, if we shall measure gravity and lightness by the wise man’s balance—who after he had considered of all the profoundest arts and studies among men—in the end cried out with this: “Epyphoneme, Vanitas vanitatum & omnia vanitas."

 [i.e., "Epyphoneme, Vanity,vanity, all is vanity"]. 

To his “critics” – those who regard art as frivolous, a “toy” he gives “one” answer, but, of course, it is not “none,” for “none” is his other code name, “none” OE/EO,  This is because, of course, “one is none”—it is "not a number," and as he has stated he hides in ONE, with an N hiding his identity of Edward Oxford, or Oxford, Edward. So, his first answer to this critics is to First give them his Code Name, which he specifically discusses immediately before these remarks. In other words, he answers his critics, whom, of course, he himself conjurs, by actually playing the poet-game of ciphers, EO. Certain to cause a chuckle amongst those who knew Ignoto was EO, and that was probably a lot of courtiers, to be sure--the more I read things like this from Ignoto.

So, after giving his “none” answer, i.e., himself, as artist poet, and recall to the reader that other “triflers” in the”toy” of poetry & its means and methods, from Homer, Ovid, Virgil, Catullus (and others). Note Ignoto’s picks of poets—Shakespeare’s favorites, whom he dares compare himself to, as one of the greatest Ever. Indeed, Ignoto, next summons up history to testify to the enormous importance of poetry—and indeed, despite ribaldry, impudence, etc., even then, nor Pope nor Patriarch have allowed or “controlled “ them, the poets, or at least those of highest rank.

In just the same sense as those of Homer and Ovid, etc. Call them trifles if you will but if value is measured his, too, he specifically tells us are just such types of “trifles.” “And as I cannot deny but these conceits of mine be trifles: no less is this true that all the most serious studies of man. . .” All things considered, “All is vanity.”]

Whose authority if it were not sufficient to make me believe so. . .

[Ignoto says the above because “Vanity, vanity, all is vanity” is from the Latin Bible, the Vulgate, Ecclesiastics—the “authority” he speaks is the Hebrew Bible].

. . . I could be content with Democritus rather to condemn the vanities of our life by derision, then as Heraclitus would have it, with tears, and saying with that merry Greek thus:

Omnia sunt risus, sunt puluis, & omnia nil sunt.
Res hominum cunctae, nam ratione carent.

Thus Englished,

All is but a jest, all dust, all not worth two peason:
For, why, in man’s matters, is neither rime nor reason.

[Now, before “passing from these courtly trifles, let us pause, before making our last comment and jump over the last paragraph.]

Now passing from these courtly trifles, let us talk of our scholastic toys, that is of the Grammatical versifying of the Greeks and Latins and see whether it might be reduced into our English art or no.



Let us look at the below, as we have an example of Ignoto’s translation of Heraclitus’ remark, and then Ignoto’s translation—and there’s the cut. That’s over, he tells us, immediately after his translation. “Now passing. . .” But let us not pass so fast. Most of us don’t know Latin, I’m one of them. But, I have a number of Latin dictionaries, and Google is very helpful often. And it offers so many ways to analyze, at one’s discretion, and hear it, too!


Google Trans. Of Latin Given by Ignoto,
Compare below with Ignoto’s translation.

Omnia sunt risus, sunt puluis,  & omnia nil sunt.
[All things are the laughter, there are dust, and all things are nothing]
Res hominum cunctae, nam ratione carent.
[All the affairs of men, for it is devoid of reason.]


All is but a jest, all dust, all not worth two peason:
[All things are the laughter, there are dust, and all things are nothing]

COMMENT: Why look at this! We, generally speaking, do not know Latin. QE’s courtier poets, men and women, surely did. They could immediately SEE what I am going to SAY:

Let’s look at what Ignoto did, he took great logician, Democritus's words and made them something they were not. Democritus dealt in "small things”, not peasons but atoms. He took Democritus's Latin words and “wrenched” them to his meaning (to use a term of Ignoto's elsewhere used)—displaying his ability as a poet and a logician. With Ignoto’s hint any poet can come up with versions of various translations. I immediately flashed on the below:

Life ‘s a jest, just dust, All is Nothing:                               Author's
All is but a jest, all dust, all not worth two peason:            Ignoto
Omnia sunt risus, sunt puluis, & omnia nil sunt:                Democritus

Obviously, the reader will see, I think, that my translation is far more literal, and could have easily been crafted with optional number of syllables. But, I use nearly the same syllables as Democritus. What I am pointing out here. That the language of Democritus “Omnia nil sunt” (of course this is Latin, not Greek) = All is Naught, is the same language and logic and epistemology and etymology of One and None. Why do I say that? Because, this is the “fault zone” in logic, where “All” is “None”. And this, one of the foundation “paradoxes” of Einstein’s Relativity, this very subject is Ignoto’s game—as I have repeatedly shown before I set eyes on this entire section of The Arte of English Posies.


What is so important to note here, to this writer, at least, is that Ignoto changed the logic of Democritus to his own tertiary form, playing off a logical paradox of Elizabethan times—as well as our own 20th Century, going now into the 21st. Preposterous? What was Ignoto’s translation again, that instead of “All is Nothing” or All is “Nought” or “All is None” or None is One, and One is None—Instead of this business—after telling the reader that work, like his, is more important than physics, business, making money, or the rest of it, because, what is needed is the Third Principle. And he plugs it into his translation, when no such kind of logic is embodied or appropriate to what he is supposedly translating from Democritus, as I have shown.

“All is but a jest, all dust, all not worth two peason;” A “peason” is a “small pea” (actually, it appears, at this time, i.e., 1589, “peason” was both a plural and singular for our modern “pea” or “peas” – which I did not know till consulting OED just now—which only underscores my point, or my points.

To get to Democritus’s “Omnia (all) nil (not) sunt (are)," rendered by me as: All is nothing," Ignoto took up a magic act of producing TWO PEASONS, and in logic, of course, one can enumerate this because “two” is a number,”one” is not, i.e., we can say 2 “P”s.

Omnia sunt risus, sunt puluis, & omnia nil sunt.
Res hominum cunctae, nam ratione carent.

Recall the above: “Thus Englished,

All is but a jest, all dust, all not worth two peason:
For, why, in man’s matters, is neither rime nor reason.

So, the logic is completely changed from Democritus, with his “atoms” the "void" to Ignoto with his “peason”—not just one, in case anyone thought so, but just to make sure, everyone would get it, he makes it TWO peasons! [perhaps even then, in 1589, peason was BOTH singular and plural, which would merely add to the humor of the subtly of the logic involved, as the OED seems to indicate]. So, Ignoto, tell us he would join with the happy-hearted Democritus (rather than Heraclitus, weeping view) and adopt his view:

“All the affairs of men are devoid of reason”
Res hominum cunctae, nam ratione carent. “

All the affairs of men, for it is devoid of reason is per Google, trans.] and added a “rime” which is definitely better than Democritus’s .

But, strangely, Ignoto’s “translation” isn’t really a translation, as probably most all his audience knew! Pause on that. Ignoto’s readers, again, they knew Latin. They knew that Lord Ignoto’s translation was telling them some other than what the actual Latin reads, which we have discussed. All that was left us now is the last line.


With the above Lord Ignoto, asserts his Mastership in all these matters dealing with “the ultimate nature of the Universe, and the logic employed, to discuss it, and shows that, Democritus is really wrong, there cannot be a logical reductionism of One (All) and “None” because “All” is One and One is Not-a Number! Get it?

There is “neither rime nor reason” in the remarks of Democritus, the translation of his remarks, from Latin into English, to bring in the subject of Two Peas (or Two collection or plurality of “peason”) in a riming pot if you please. Unless, of course, you wish to speak of poetry and logic.

So, Ignoto corrects the logic of his philosophy of Atomism where, as I recite, no doubt somewhat incorrectly, from memory, but the last two lines I'm fairly sure of:

In use there is good and evil,
In use there is sweet and sour,
In reality there is only,
Atoms and the void.

And, if I recall my philosophy, this is exactly Democritus’s World View. “Atoms and the Void”—We still have the same ideas, the same logic, the same confusions. Ignoto well knew these things.

Ignoto leaves us with his last line of translation from Democritus: For why in mans matters, is neither rime nor reason. Res hominum cunctae, nam ratione carent [Whereas Latin translations of Democritus wrote "All the affairs of man are devoid of reason."]

Again, Lord Ignoto, added a more than a touch of Rhyme and Reason—to the content of Democritus's last line—both Rime and Reason needed to be added, to arrive at EO--who needs to tell us these things--that Democritus's logic was wrong. He wrote, instead, his own story, and used their words to tell it:

Thus Englished,

All is but a jest, all dust, all not worth two peason:
For why in mans matters is neither rime nor reason.

All this in one “translation!

The person who wrote this must be crazy. Maybe one of those frivolous, mad poets!