One of the Pope's wrote an erotic book

Historia de duobus amantibus 
by Pope Prius II aka Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini

Before he was Pope Pius II, Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini was a poet, scholar, diplomat, and rakehell. And an author. In fact, he wrote a bestseller. Folks in fifteenth century Europe couldn't get enough of his Latin novella Historia de duobus amantibus. 

An article in a scholarly publication on literature claims that Historia de duobus amantibus "was undoubtedly one of the most read stories of

the whole Renaissance." The Oxford edition gives a Cliff Notes version of the storyline:

"The Goodli History tells of the illicit love of Euralius, a high official in the retinue of the [German] Emperor Sigismund, and Lucres, a married lady from Siena [Italy]." It was probably written in 1444, but the earliest known printing is from Antwerp in 1488. By the turn of the century, 37 editions had been published. Somewhere around 1553, the short book

appeared in English under the wonderfully old-school title The Goodli History of the Moste Noble and Beautyfull Ladye Lucres of Scene in Tuskane, and of Her Louer Eurialus Verye Pleasaunt and Delectable vnto ye Reder. 

Pope Pius II

Despite the obvious historical interest of this archaic Vatican porn, it has never been translated into contemporary language. (The passages quoted below mark the first time that any of the book has appeared in modern English.)

The 1400's being what they were, the action is pretty tame by today's standards. At one point, Euralius scales a wall to be with Lucres:

"When she saw her lover, she clasped him in her arms. There was embracing and kissing, and with full sail they followed their lusts and wearied Venus, now with Ceres, and now with Bacchus was refreshed." 

Loosely translated, that last part means that they shagged, then ate, then drank wine.

His Holiness describes the next time they hook up:

Thus talking to each other, they went into the bedroom, where they had such a night as we
judge the two lovers Paris and Helen had after he had taken her away, and it was so
pleasant that they thought Mars and Venus had never known such pleasure.... 

Her mouth, and now her eyes, and now her cheeks he kissed. Pulling down her clothes, he
saw such beauty as he had never seen before. "I have found more, I believe," said Euralius,
"than Acteon saw of Diana when she bathed in the fountain. What is more pleasant or
more fair than these limbs?... O fair neck and pleasant breasts, is it you that I touch? Is it
you that I have? Are you in my hands? O round limbs, O sweet body, do I have you in my
arms?... O pleasant kisses, O dear embraces, O sweet bites, no man alive is happier than I
am, or more blessed."... 

He strained, and she strained, and when they were done they weren't weary. Like Athens,
who rose from the ground stronger, soon after battle they were more desirous of war.
But Euralius isn't just a horndog. He waxes philosophical about love to Lucres' cousin-in-law:
You know that man is prone to love. Whether it is virtue or vice, it reigns everywhere. No
heart of flesh hasn't sometime felt the pricks of love. You know that neither the wise
Solomon nor the strong Sampson has escaped from this passion. Furthermore, the nature
of a kindled heart and a foolish love is this: The more it is allowed, the more it burns, with
nothing sooner healing this than the obtaining of the loved. There have been many, both in
our time and that of our elders, whose foolish love has been the cause of cruel death. And
many who, after sex and love vouchsafed, have stopped burning. Nothing is better when
love has crept into your bones than to give in to the burning, for those who strive against
the tempest often wreck, while those who drive with the storm escape.

Besides sex and wisdom, the story also contains a lot of humor, as when Lucres' husband borrows a horse from Euralius: "He says to himself, 'If you leap upon my horse, I shall do the same thing to your wife.'"

Popes just don't write books like that anymore!

Secret fact: The US Government can legally take your house and land and sell then to make profit

Legal land grabbing by US Gov't

It is not an issue that gets much attention, but the United States government has the right to seize your house, business, and/or land, forcing you into the street. This mighty power, called "eminent domain," is enshrined in the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation".

Every single state constitution also stipulates that a person whose property is taken must be justly compensated and that the property must be put to public use. This should mean that if your house is smack-dab in the middle of a proposed highway, the government can take it, pay you market value, and build the highway. Whether or not this is a power the government should have is very much open to question, but what makes it worse is the abuse of this supposedly limited power.

Across the country, local governments are stealing their citizens' property, then turning around and selling it to corporations for the construction of malls, condominiums, parking lots, racetracks, office complexes, factories, etcetera.

The Institute for Justice — the country's only nonprofit, public-interest law firm with a libertarian philosophy — spends a good deal of time and money protecting individuals and small businesses from greedy corporations and their partners in crime: bureaucrats armed with eminent domain. In 2003, it released a report on the use of "governmental condemnation" (another name for eminent domain) for private gain. No central data collection for this trend exists, and only one state (Connecticut) keeps statistics on it. Using court records, media accounts, and information from involved parties, the Institute I found over 10,000 such abuses in 41 states from 1998 through 2002. Of these, the legal I process had been initiated against 3,722 properties, and condemnation had been threatened against 6,560 properties. (Remember, this is condemnation solely for the

benefit of private parties, not for so-called legitimate reasons of "public use.")

In one instance, the city of Hurst, Texas, condemned 127 homes so that a mall could expand. Most of the families moved under the pressure, but ten chose to stay and fight. The Institute

writes:

A Texas trial judge refused to stay the condemnations while the suit was on-going, so the residents lost their homes. Leonard Prohs had to move while his wife was in the hospital with brain cancer. She died only five days after their house was demolished. Phyllis Duval's husband also was in the hospital with cancer at the time they were required to move. He died one month after the demolition. Of the ten couples, three spouses died and four others suffered heart attacks during the dispute and litigation. In court, the owners presented evidence that the land surveyor who designed the roads for the mall had been told to change the path of one road to run through eight of the houses of the owners challenging the condemnations.

In another case, wanting to "redevelop" Main Street, the city of East Hartford, Connecticut, used eminent domain to threaten a bakery / deli that had been in that spot for 93 years, owned and operated by the same family during that whole time. Thus coerced, the family sold the business for $1.75 million, and the local landmark was destroyed. But the redevelopment fell through, so the lot now stands empty and the city is in debt.

The city of Cypress, California, wanted Costco to build a retail store on an 18-acre plot of land. Trouble was, the Cottonwood Christian Center already owned the land fair and square, and was

planning to build a church on it. The city council used eminent domain to seize the land, saying that the new church would be a "public nuisance" and would "blight" the area (which is right

beside a horse-racing track). The Christian Center got a federal injunction to stop the condemnation, and the city appealed this decision. To avoid further protracted legal nightmares, the church group consented to trade its land for another tract in the vicinity. But all of this is small potatoes compared to what's going on in Riviera Beach, Florida:

City Council members voted unanimously to approve a $1.25 billion redevelopment plan with the authority to use eminent domain to condemn at least 1,700 houses and apartments

and dislocate 5,100 people. The city will then take the property and sell the land to commercial yachting, shipping, and tourism companies. If approved by the state, it will be one of the biggest eminent domain seizures in US history.

In 1795, the Supreme Court referred to eminent domain as "the despotic power." Over two centuries later, they continue to be proven right.

Secret fact: The Police isn't legally obligated to protect you

Without even thinking about it, we take it as a given that the police must protect each of us. That's their whole reason for existence, right?

While that may be true in a few jurisdictions around the world, it is actually the exception, not the rule. In general, court decisions and state laws have held that the police doesn't have to do a thing to help you when you're in danger.

In the only book devoted exclusively to the subject, Dial 911 and Die, attorney Richard W. Stevens writes:

It was the most shocking thing I learned in law school when I came upon the case of Hartzler vs City of San Jose. In that case I discovered the secret truth: the government owes no duty to

protect individual citizens from criminal attack. Not only did the California courts hold to that rule, the California legislature had enacted a statute to make sure the courts couldn't change the rule.

But this doesn't apply to just the wild, upside down world of Kalifornia. Stevens cites laws and cases for every state — plus Washington DC, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Canada - which reveal the same thing. If the police fail to protect you, even through sheer incompetence and negligence, don't expect that you or your next of kin will be able to sue.

Secret fact: Juries are allowed to judge the law

In order to protect citizens against the whims of the King, the right to a trial by jury was established by the Magna Carta as early as 1215, and it has become one of the most sacrosanct legal aspects of British- and American societies. We tend to believe that the duty of a jury is solely to determine whether someone broke the law. In fact, it's not unusual for judges to instruct juries that they are to judge only the

facts in a case, while the judge will sit in judgement of the law itself.

This is plain and straight bull-crap nonsense.

Juries are the last line of defense against the power abuses of the authorities. They have the right to judge the law. Even if a defendant committed a crime, a jury can refuse to render a guilty verdict. Among the main reasons why this might happen, according to attorney Clay S. Conrad:

When the defendant has already suffered enough, when it would be unfair or against the public interest for the defendant to be convicted, when the jury disagrees with the law itself, when the prosecution or the arresting authorities have gone "too far" in the singleminded quest to arrest and convict a particular defendant, when the punishments to be imposed are excessive or when the jury suspects that the charges have been brought for political reasons or to make an unfair example of the hapless defendant...

Some of the earliest examples of jury nullification from Britain and the American Colonies were refusals to convict people who had spoken ill of the government (they were prosecuted under "seditious libel" laws) or who were practicing forbidden religions, such as Quakerism. Up to the time of the Civil War, American juries often refused to convict the brave souls who helped runaway slaves. In the 1800s, jury nullifications saved the hides of union organizers who were being prosecuted with conspiracy to restrain trade. Juries used their power to free people charged under the anti-alcohol laws of Prohibition, as well as antiwar protesters during the Vietnam era.

Jury in court; Juries are allowed
to judge the law; World's biggest
secrets blog

What is Chained CPI?

A hot topic in recent days, but what the heck does it mean??

Chained CPI hits hard

Chained CPI (or chained consumer price index) is a means of calculating cost-of-living adjustments for those who get some form of federal benefits.


Chained CPI assumes that people would buy cheaper goods when they have less money to spend. So if someone can't afford steak, they'll buy chicken instead. It assumes that all things are equal in quality, but not equal in price. Why should people pay for a new home when they could, after all, live in a trailer? In both cases, the negotiators assume, people have a roof over their heads. Who cares about the quality?

Using chain CPI, instead of continuing to use standard CPI, allows the government to help balance it's books on the backs of those with the most to lose. Retirees, veterans, those receiving disability or social security, and so forth all rely on the CPI to keep themselves ahead of inflation. These people will lose ground every year under chain CPI.

But what's really happening is that the negotiators in Washington want to cut entitlements without appearing to cut entitlements. By doing that they're also going to impact the ability of people to buy all sorts of goods. If chained CPI is enacted as a part of the fiscal cliff deal (and something will be enacted, there's too much political pressure for it not to happen) we'll see a large decline in American's disposable income.

Cracking the code of an 19th century secret society

For many years, Christiane Schaefer and Wolfgang Hock met at an Italian bistro in Berlin. The 2 experts in ancient writings talked for hours about dead languages and obscure manuscripts. In the fall of 1998, Schaefer was about to leave Berlin to take a job in the linguistics department at Uppsala University of Sweden. Hock said that he had a goodbye-present for Schaefer, a large brown paper envelope marked with the words top secret and a series of odd characters. Inside was a note that read, “Something for those long Swedish winter nights” It was paper-clipped to 100 or so photocopied pages filled with a handwritten script that made no sense to her whatsoever:

It was some strange kind of cipher. Schaefer pelted Hock with questions about the manuscript’s contents. Hock deflected her with laughter, mentioning only that the original text could be Albanian of some sort and that she would have to find her own answers.

What do you mean, not obviously subliminal?

How the Obama team uses the "saint technique" of subliminal mind play:

And here an example from Harry Potter:

So why are there subliminal sex embeds in family movies? Is it because sex sells or is there more to it... Most experts on this subject say that keeping the people in the "animal-like state" and replacing everything gorgeous and good with  beastliness and corruption, is the real purpose.  It's the mind-control game. Some people (the people with power) just don't want the public to think too much. The people who run the world and want to continue doing that without being interrupted. The principle is not really new, it's been in use since the Roman Empire - the Bread and Games solution for oppressed and exploited masses in a decadent society. 

In order to understand how the word SEX keeps us from thinking let's see how our brain is built. It consists of three parts: Reptilian complex, Limbic system and Neo-cortex. Reptilian complex controls involuntary behavior and automatic functions such as breath, heartbeat etc. Primary needs, such as self-preservation, hunger, reproduction etc initiate as well in this part of the brain. Constant stimulation of the R-complex by relevant stimuli averts the higher parts of the brain from their full functioning.