Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Religion is power over your mind. With faithism, in general, one is giving into not knowing belief as proof of some claimed knowing. Religious people are commonly influenced to not look but just believe on the will to believe things not known. Most “Religious people” claim a Full-faith before even reading half of the holy book they claim is completely true even if they don’t know all its claims as truth. Well, sadly, too often there is little difference between an obvious delusion we may reject, a cult we fear, and a religion we accept or support, then it’s currently in flavor, and the number of people involved…

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Religion and Poverty?

“Religion and poverty are two of the world’s most enduring social and cultural phenomena. They have a long and eventful history, and are not separate from one another, but closely interrelated: on the one hand, there is a long tradition of religiously motivated poverty; on the other hand, giving to the poor is often seen as a religious duty. In recent years, faith-based organizations have been recognized in research as an important factor in global poverty reduction.” ref

“A number of important questions are worth exploring. First, to what extent are religion and poverty connected at the demographic level (Keister, 2011; Thorat, 2010; Hoverd et al., 2013)? Are members of certain religions more affected by poverty than others? In which social and geographical areas is this the case and why? What historical developments, which combine religious affiliation and poverty, have become entrenched at the social level? Are there other socio-economic characteristics that connect religion and poverty (for instance, that certain religions are mainly lived by migrants)? Is the link between religion and poverty consequently due to other socio-economic factors, and is religious belonging a random characteristic?” ref

“In exploring such questions it is important that lived religious practice be distinguished from the mere belonging to a religion, and in both cases, local characteristics have to be taken into account in each case. After all, religions, especially the ‘great world religions’, are extremely diverse in themselves and the composition of their adherents is inevitably heterogeneous. A case in point concerns the relationship between religious affiliation and beliefs about the actual causes of poverty. A study conducted in the United States (Hunt, 2002) showed that “religious factors” have a significant influence on the assumed causes of poverty and whether this is explained as “individualistic”, “structuralist” or “fatalistic.” ref

“Questions also arise about the role of religion in the lives of poor people (Sullivan, 2011; Yurdakul and Atik, 2016; Puffer et al., 2012; Dillen and Van Hoof, 2016; Rogers and Konieczny, 2018). First, it seems trivial to note that religions (which can be understood as complex cultural practices and belief systems) can sometimes play an important role in the lives of poor people to help them understand themselves and interpret the world around them, their social and economic position, and their immediate society. For example, a recent study (Hoverd and Sibley, 2013) examining a representative sample in New Zealand showed that religious people living in deprived neighborhoods have higher subjective well-being than their non-religious neighbors living in the same area. Under impoverished conditions, the difference in well-being between religious and non-religious people is evident, while in affluent neighborhoods, subjective well-being was high regardless of religiousness.” ref

“All religions have something to say about poverty, and other issues related to social inequality, and offer implicit and explicit interpretative templates (Beyers, 2014). Religions can relieve and burden, they can stand against poverty and legitimize resistance, but they can also justify inequalities, poverty, and exploitation. It is the case that religious belief systems can frequently be understood in different ways and that they can produce texts, discourses, and practices that can be interpreted multifariously. For researchers, and especially for those people and institutions that are engaged in poverty alleviation, the potential impact of religions—whether positive or negative—is clearly of importance and interest.” ref

“Wealth ownership is highly concentrated in the United States: the top 1 percent of households have consistently owned about 33 percent of net worth, and wealth inequality has gotten even worse since the recession. High levels of wealth provide great advantages, but even a small amount of savings can mitigate the effect of financial shock. It is relatively enduring within and across generations and can have significant educational, occupation, political and social advantages. Wealth provides a buffer against financial emergencies and can generate more wealth when it is reinvested.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Religion and Capitalism?

“Here is a little on how religious ideologies encourage our participation in capitalism. When only 2,000 people have as much money and power as 60% of the rest of humanity (Oxfam), what compels workers to continue to show up for underpaid labor?” ref

“Marx argued that religion, as an ideology, maintains this system of inequality. In Marx’s view, those without wealth or power continue to work for low wages because they have internalized the idea that any type of work is, itself, an inherent moral value. Within a religious, capitalist culture, people work to benefit the rich because they believe that we will be rewarded in the afterlife.” ref

“Marx once described religion as “the opium of the people” which is a commonly cited and commonly misunderstood quote. Many dictatorial regimes have, historically, misappropriated this Marxist argument to justify a violent crackdown on religion in their countries (Eagleton 128). At the time of Marx’s claim, opium was legal and was widely used to relieve pain. So, he was not arguing that religion was some kind of addictive drug that people behave in an unreasonable manner. Rather, he was arguing that religion was a comfort to people who were suffering (Stein and Stein 18).” ref

“Marx’s exact quote on the matter is,

“Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusion.” ref

“Marx was not seeking to punish or eliminate religion but, rather, did not consider religion to be as real as a person’s material necessities required to survive (Eagleton 128). Marx and Engels did not view religion as an inherent part of human nature but, rather as a construction offered by powerful groups in order to maintain the “false consciousness” necessary to keep workers working (Stein and Stein 18). Marx argued that power flows from the top of society downward to influence the internalized ideologies of those with less power (Mascia-Lees 157).” ref

“Marx and Engels’ works have had a variety of influences across the world since their original publications: socialism has taken hold in a variety of degrees across the world with varying levels of success, at the same time, socialism has been rejected in other parts of the world resulting in a strengthened cultural commitment to capitalism (also with varying levels of success). In cultural anthropology, Marx and Engels’ influence resulted in a new theoretical approach toward the study of culture which we call The Marxist Approach (Kuper 182–183). The Marxist Approach examines power imbalances that exist within and across cultures. Specifically, the Marxist Approach considers how “material conditions” (or, the production of things that people need to survive) lead to the spread, or elimination, or maintenance of particular cultural trends, beliefs in traditions.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Capitalism as Religion?

“One of the best-known classical versions of this much discussed claim was formulated by Walter Benjamin in 1921 in a short and cryptic fragment entitled Capitalism as Religion. The fragment was not intended for publication and was never fully elaborated; it remains open for different readings. Benjamin’s thesis is usually interpreted as a critical inversion of Max Weber’s so-called thesis, i.e. his conceptualization of the relationship between religion and the capitalist system. There is, however, some evidence that the stimulus for this inflection of arguments was given by Weber himself. Moreover, it undoubtedly bears the stamp of the ‘underground influence’ of Benjamin’s mentor and ‘intellectual predecessor’ (Jameson 1999): Georg Simmel.” ref

“Benjamin explicitly refers to Weber by saying that capitalism is ‘not only a religiously conditioned construction, as Weber thought’, but ‘an essentially religious phenomenon’. The fragment opens with a provocative statement: ‘one can see in capitalism a religion, that is to say, capitalism essentially serves to satisfy the same worries, anguish, and disquiet formerly answered by so-called religions’. In other words, capitalism became a functional equivalent of established religious systems. However, it did not gain this position simply at the expense of traditional religions, in the consequence of institutional secularisation – but rather, to use an economic expression, as a result of a hostile takeover. In the polemic with Weber Benjamin holds that Western Christianity did not stimulated the emergence of capitalism, but rather transformed into capitalism. Benjamin identified four distinctive characteristics of the religious structure of capitalism.” ref

“First, capitalism is a religion which consists entirely of cult; it has no specific dogma nor theology. Secondly, capitalism is characterized by the permanent duration of the cult – ‘without respite and without mercy’. There is no ‘weekday’, no day ‘that would not be a holiday in the awful sense of exhibiting all sacred pomp’. Thirdly, this is a cult that engenders guilt/debt (the German word Schuld has a double meaning; Benjamin mentions in this context ‘the daemonic ambiguity of the word Schuld’): ‘capitalism is presumably the first case of a cult that does not bring expiation, but burdens with guilt/debts’. And, finally, the last characteristics of the religious structure of capitalism is that ‘its God must become concealed’.” ref

“Benjamin has never revealed the name of this hidden deity which has taken the place of the Judeo-Christian God. To identify the God of capitalist religion,

and to properly understand Benjamin’s capitalism/religion equation, we have to dig into the sources of ideas and images he is deploying. The dependence on Weber is rather obvious. The fragment refers explicitly to Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, Ernst Troeltsch and Gustav Landauer. A general reference to Gustav Landauer’s book A Call for Socialism, which contains the sentence ‘money has become a god, it has become a man-eater’ (Landauer 1920: 144), hints at the identity of the anonymous capitalist deity (see Hamacher 2003: 98; Soosten 2003: 134). Troeltsch might have inspired Benjamin by the statement (from Social Teachings of Christian Churches and Groups) that with John Calvin capitalism ‘has broken into Christianity’. But there are also other possible inspirations never mentioned by Benjamin.” ref

“As some critics have pointed out, the title of the fragment is directly borrowed from Ernst Bloch’s Thomas Münzer, Theologian of Revolution – a book which appeared earlier in the same year (1921). Bloch was a Marxist, a member of Max Weber’s circle in the years 1912-14, and a close friend of Walter Benjamin. The expression ‘capitalism as religion’ appears indeed in Bloch’s book, but it is equally possible that it was Bloch who borrowed the phrase from Benjamin (they frequently exchanged ideas, and Benjamin later even accused Bloch of stealing his own formulations). Be that as it may, the fragment in which Bloch refers to ‘capitalism as religion’ is very short, and the concept itself is not elaborated.” ref

“The capitalist economy today, says Bloch, is totally liberated from all qualms of Christianity, and the responsibility lay with Calvin. According to Bloch, Calvin deviated from the Christian radicalism by reducing the tension between everyday life and a life hereafter; he ‘unleashed the everyday life’. The majesty ascribed to Christian God transferred to bookkeeping, and the sense of divine soon became reduced to ‘a paradoxal relaxation of a dead Sunday’. In the end, Calvin’s reform ‘brought about not just a simple abuse of Christianity, but the total apostasy from Christianity, or even the aspects of a new religion: capitalism as religion and the Church of Mammon’ (Bloch 1967: 142f.).” ref

“There are some obvious similarities between Bloch’s and Benjamin’s statements. The phrase ‘Church of Mammon’, however, leads us to Georg Simmel, who was an intellectual predecessor of both thinkers – and especially of Walter Benjamin, who attended Simmel’s seminar in 1912 and forever ‘failed to escape the force field of Simmel’s thought’ – as it was stated by Frederic Jameson (1999) and meticulously documented by Marian Micko (2010).” ref

“The intellectual context of his argument allows us to identify the capitalist God that ‘must become concealed’ as Mammon – the money. This conclusion finds its justification in Benjamin’s own note, saying ‘compare the holy iconography of various religions on one hand with the banknotes of various countries on the other’. And further: ‘to examine what associations money has formed with myth in the course of history – until it could seize enough mythical elements from Christianity to be able to constitute its own myth’. This myth would not develop an explicit dogma or theology; if there is any ‘capitalist doctrine’, then probably the gist of it was given by Marx in his Capital: ‘Accumulate! Accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!'” ref

“If capitalism has no specific dogma, then what counts are the actions, which take the form of cult practices. As Michael Lowy (2010) put it: ‘Money, in the form of paper-notes, would be the object of a cult similar to the one of saints in “ordinary” religions.’ This cult would have to be permanent: Benjamin has probably absorbed Weber’s description of the religious value set in Protestant ethics on restless, continuous, and systematic work; analogous to it, capitalist practices are also characterized by their permanence; but, ironically, in the reversal of Puritan disregard for religious feasts, now every day is a holiday because it is fully devoted to the celebration of this-worldly deity. And, finally, as to the statement that this cult engenders guilt/debt: according to Burkhard Lindner, ‘the historical perspective of the fragment is grounded on the premiss that one cannot separate, in the system of capitalist religion, the “mythical guilt” and the economic debt’ (quoted after Lowy 2010).” ref

“After almost a century we have to acknowledge Benjamin’s foresight: today, even a ‘relaxation of a dead Sunday’ is abolished. The stock exchange operates continuously and shopping malls are open each and every day until all hours; the worship continues ‘without respite and without mercy’. Those who are not convinced should consider Falk Wagner’s comment that a consciousness, defined by omnipotence and omnipresence of money, would have to be considered as religious consciousness, although not in its self-understanding (Wagner 1984: 13). And that is exactly the point that Benjamin is making in the closing sentence of his fragment: ‘it contributes to the knowledge of capitalism as a religion to imagine that the original paganism certainly grasped religion not as a “higher” “moral” interest, but as the most immediately practical – that, with other words, just as today’s capitalism it had not been aware of its “ideal” or “transcendent” nature.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Religion and the Rise of Capitalism?

“Critics of contemporary economics complain that belief in free markets–among economists as well as many ordinary citizens–is a form of religion. And, it turns out, that in a deeper, more historically grounded sense there is something to that idea. Contrary to the conventional historical view of economics as an entirely secular product of the Enlightenment, Benjamin M. Friedman demonstrates that religion exerted a powerful influence from the outset. Friedman makes clear how the foundational transition in thinking about what we now call economics, beginning in the eighteenth century, was decisively shaped by the hotly contended lines of religious thought within the English-speaking Protestant world.” ref

“Beliefs about God-given human character, about the after-life, and about the purpose of our existence, were all under scrutiny in the world in which Adam Smith and his contemporaries lived. Friedman explores how those debates go far in explaining the puzzling behavior of so many of our fellow citizens whose views about economic policies–and whose voting behavior–seems sharply at odds with what would be to their own economic benefit. Illuminating the origins of the relationship between religious thinking and economic thinking, together with its ongoing consequences, Friedman provides invaluable insights into our current economic policy debates and demonstrates ways to shape more functional policies for all citizens.” ref 

“Ben Friedman’s Religion and the Rise of Capitalism is an expansive and intricate tapestry depicting the progression and interaction of ideas and events in economics and (mainly Protestant) religion across four centuries. The richness of the woven strands does not obscure the thematic integrity of the book’s central argument.”—Bruce MacLaury, President Emeritus, The Brookings Institution.” ref

“Religion and the Rise of Capitalism takes longstanding debates over religion and capitalism in a surprising new direction. Benjamin Friedman makes his case with the erudition and particularity of a leading academic economist. His arguments are sure to generate new thinking and debate from all sides.”—Christopher DeMuth, Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute.” ref

“Ben Friedman’s fascinating and impressive account of the interaction of economics and religion combines both mastery of the history of economic theory and a profound engagement with the complexities of religious belief, both in Britain and America. Economists, theologians, and students of modern intellectual history will find here a truly valuable resource.”—Harold W. Attridge, Sterling Professor of Divinity emeritus, Yale University.” ref

“Citizens are not simply pursuers of narrowly defined economic self-interest, sometimes to the point of seeming self-harm. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism makes sense of these choices with respect and insight, by showing the power of religious ideas to shape character, and in turn policy.”—Adam S. Posen, President, Peterson Institute for International Economics.” ref

“Benjamin Friedman has produced a worthy piece of intellectual history, with important implications for public policy. His book, to use an appropriate adjective, is enlightening.”—Robert Solow, Institute Professor Emeritus, MIT.” ref

“With his focus on the role of religion in the evolution of economic thinking, Benjamin Friedman has given us an original and brilliant new perspective on the terrifying divisions of our own times. No book could be more important.”—George A. Akerlof, Nobel Laureate in Economics.” ref

“In this pathbreaking study, Benjamin Friedman follows the continuing influence of theology on economics from Adam Smith into the twentieth century and even provides an analysis of why so many religious people in the U.S. today vote contrary to their own economic interests. A subtle and insightful book.”—Daniel Finn, Clemens Professor of Economics and Professor of Theology, College of St. Benedict and St. John’s University.” ref

“Economists and others curious about what sparked the classical economics of Smith and Schumpeter, later Keynes’s paradigm and some of the new theories emerging now must read this colossal work. On top of that, the book puts to rest the belief that economists can’t write.”—Edmund Phelps, Nobel Laureate in Economics, author of Mass Flourishing.” ref

“In this massively researched and scholarly book, Friedman shows that religious thinking was present at the creation of the young science of economics, and that its influence on modern economic thought has been profound and lasting. Not only in academic circles, but also in present-day American political discourse, religion has been powerful both for good and for ill. The author’s Moral Consequences of Economic Growth was a model of how to communicate complex factual material and sophisticated reasoning to the general reader. This new book does at least as good a job.”—A.M.C. Waterman, St John’s College, Winnipeg.” ref

“A lively, lucid story of self-interest mutating into something beneficial, a story crucial to the emergence of modern economics.”—David D. Hall, author of The Puritans: A Transatlantic History. Ben Friedman’s Religion and the Rise of Capitalism is from one of the nation’s preeminent experts on economic policy, a major reassessment of the foundations of modern economic thinking that explores the profound influence of an until-now unrecognized force–religion. Click here to purchase Religion and The Rise of Capitalism.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Religion and Banking?

“The Knights Templar set up a prosperous network of banks and gained enormous financial influence. Their banking system allowed religious pilgrims to deposit assets in their home countries and withdraw funds in the Holy Land. And the term “Holy Land” roughly corresponds to the State of Israel, Palestinian territories, western Jordan, parts of southern Lebanon and southwestern Syria. Jews, Christians, and Muslims tend to regard it as holy.” ref, ref

“The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon (Latin: Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Salomonici), also known as the Order of Solomon’s Temple, the Knights Templar or simply the Templars, was a Catholic military order founded in 1119, headquartered on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem through 1128 when they went to meet with Pope Honorius II. They were recognized in 1139 by the papal bull Omne datum optimum of Pope Innocent II. The order was active until 1312 when it was perpetually suppressed by Pope Clement V by the bull Vox in excelso.” ref

“The Templars became a favored charity throughout Christendom, and grew rapidly in membership and power. They were prominent in Christian finance. Templar knights, in their distinctive white mantles with a red cross, were amongst the most skilled fighting units of the Crusades. Non-combatant members of the order, who made up as much as 90% of their members, managed a large economic infrastructure throughout Christendom, developing innovative financial techniques that were an early form of banking, building its own network of nearly 1,000 commanderies and fortifications across Europe and the Holy Land, and arguably forming the world’s first multinational corporation.” ref

“The order became known for its austere code of conduct (which included no pointy shoes and no kissing their mothers, rules outlined in “The Rule of the Templars”) and signature style of dress, which featured a white habit emblazoned with a simple red cross. Members swore an oath of poverty, chastity, and obedience. They weren’t allowed to drink, gamble, or swear. Prayer was essential to their daily life, and the Templars expressed particular adoration for the Virgin Mary.” ref

“As the Knights Templar grew in size and status, it established new chapters throughout Western Europe. At the height of their influence, the Templars boasted a sizable fleet of ships, owned the Mediterranean island of Cyprus, and served as a primary bank and lending institution to European monarchs and nobles.” ref 

The Knights Templar: Military order or the First Financial-Services Company? 

By Tom Teodorczuk

“New book details how the military order operated 13th-century banking and crowdfunding practices. And one should think to ask, how did the Templars become such an economic force? The Templars are known for the drama of their downfall or their role as medieval special forces. But they had a vast business and commercial empire, with lands generating agricultural produce and revenue all the way from Ireland to Cyprus and the Crusader states. They owned property in big cities which was rented out and chartered shipping in worldwide ports.” ref

Then there was the banking side of things. It’s sometimes said the Templars were the world’s first bankers. There was a system of banking of deposits — King John of England deposited the crown jewels with the Templars in London when he was in trouble before the Magna Carta. But that doesn’t do them justice. They weren’t the first world’s bankers. They were providing the world’s first financial-services company.” ref

In what ways were they a financial-services company?

“For example, in France for about a hundred years during the 13th century, the Templars subcontracted huge swathes of French Treasury functions. They were paying royal officials there on behalf of the crown and running the books for the French King, his brothers, and his mother. They were collecting, on behalf of the Pope, the crusading taxes levied by the church in England, France, Hungary, and parts of Spain and Italy.” ref

“Their spread of properties all across Europe and presence in just about every kingdom made them unique. They crossed boundaries and weren’t subject to the authority or policies of any particular king. They were tax-exempt in many jurisdictions across Europe. If you think about the deal between Google and the Irish government, the Templars had that times 20.” ref

How could they afford this?

“They had a wide pool of donors of every sort. They were pulling in money from at the top end — Alfonso I, the King of Aragon, left them a third of his kingdom in his will and Queens and Kings gave them huge landed estates. They were also the recipients of popular donations, what today we would call crowdfunding. People left them in their wills a donkey or a little plot of land, tiny donations that when you added them up were massive and funded military operations.” ref

“The early masters of the Templars were adept at raising finance. As soon as the Templars were set up in 1119-20, Hughes de Payens the first Grand Master, didn’t hang around waiting to get killed in Jerusalem. He went back to Europe and toured the royal courts attracting high-level investment. He persuaded Henri I, son of William the Conqueror, to raise treasure from his barons which was then funneled back to fund this new organization he had set up. It was like raising venture capital. As it turns out in that instance, it didn’t work out very well because the men he convinced to join the order were killed and the money he raised was wasted because it was pumped into a campaign to attack Damascus which went badly wrong.” ref

Did the Templars’ economic expansion occur organically or was it part of a master plan?

“It’s hard to tell. I think the vision was small to begin with but the Templars attracted brains who saw the potential to make it more than just an ad hoc roadside rescue service for pilgrims, something that would have a reach into people’s lives everywhere from the British Isles to the Holy Land.” ref

“If you were a young guy who wanted to go to war and fight for God, you could join the Templars. If you were an old guy who wanted to atone for a sinful life but was no good for fighting, you could join and run the books in a regional Templar house. If you didn’t wish to join but wanted to accrue the spiritual benefits of involvement, you could donate. They had what today in business terms would be called amazing international branding. The white mantle, the red cross. It’s the Nike swoosh, the McDonald’s arches, the Apple logo of the day. You don’t need language to understand it.” ref

“The classic story is that the crusader states were lost in 1291 and 15 years later the Templars fell into the middle of a row between Philip IV the King of France and the Pope. The King of France was heavily in debt to them and so he accused them of a list of bogus crimes and had them wound up. It was medieval fake news. But it’s deeper than the French King owing them money and not wanting to pay it back. The Templars were in a bad way, having lost Jerusalem and there were calls all over Europe for them to be reformed. They’re not blameless victims. They had an institutional pride that resisted any attempt at reform.” ref

“But there wasn’t a long period of worsening relations between the Templars and the French crown. One of the reasons why so many myths have attracted themselves around the Templars — particularly the myth that they can’t possibly have been destroyed and must have got their wealth out-is that people think, ‘It’s a big organization. It can’t be wound up just like that.’ I was in America the day Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns disappeared. It took a lot longer in the case of the Templars and it’s slightly trite but an analogy worth bearing in mind that these big organizations look upon themselves as untouchable but are less resistant than they think.” ref

Do you think an investment company called “Templar” could hypothetically form tomorrow and model itself on the principles of the order?

“I’m slightly surprised someone hasn’t done that! The Templars diversified — they were into commodities and wine-making, as well as financial services. For 200 years they did very well. They embraced diversity. Although they were a militant Christian organization, they were flexible and pragmatic like in the East where they hired as soldiers Turcapole Syrian cavalry, who happened to be Muslim, as they were much better at fighting in the conditions.” ref

“Their blind spot about the weakness of their organization and their fixation on their strengths is a classic business mistake. But the Templars had an advanced organizational structure. It’s clear what the ultimate purpose was — to funnel money to the war zones and the military efforts. The regional commanders reported to a “CEO” in Jerusalem operating under a pyramid hierarchical structure.” ref

Pyramid of Capitalist System? 

“The Pyramid of Capitalist System is a common name of a 1911 American cartoon caricature critical of capitalism, copied from a Russian flyer of c. 1901. The graphic focus is on social stratification by social class and economic inequality. The work has been described as “famous”, “well-known and widely reproduced”. A number of derivative works exist. It was published in the 1911 edition of Industrial Worker (The International Publishing Co., Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.), a newspaper of the Industrial Workers of the World, and attributed to “Nedeljkovich, Brashich, & Kuharich.” ref

“The picture shows a literal “social pyramid” or hierarchy, with the wealthy few on the top, and the impoverished masses at the bottom. Crowned with a money bag representing capitalism, the top layer, “we rule you”, is occupied by the royalty and state leaders. Underneath them are the clergy (“we fool you”), followed by the military (“we shoot at you”), and the bourgeoisie (“we eat for you”). The bottom of the pyramid is held by the workers and the peasants (“we work for all… we feed all”).” ref

“The work is based on older similar pictures. In 1900 the Belgian Labour Party used a picture called “Pyramide à renverser” (“a pyramide that has to be overthrowm) during its electoral campaign. A year later Nicolas Lokhoff‘s 1901 caricature of the Russian Empire hierarchy by the Union of Russian Socialists was published. The original picture showed workers supporting the pyramid on their backs, with the stanza: “The time will come when the people in their fury will straighten their bent backs and bring down the structure with one mighty push of their shoulders.” ref 

“Notable differences between the Russian 1900 original and the American 1911 derivative version include the replacement of the Russian Empire’s black eagle with a money bag, the Russian tsar and tsarina with a more generic trio of figures (a monarch and state leaders in suits), two of the three Orthodox clergy with a Catholic cardinal and a Protestant minister, and the Russian Empire army with a more generic group of soldiers; the workers are no longer bent and no revolutionary stanza is present. In both pictures, a fallen child or child worker symbolizes the plight of the workers.” ref 

“Another shared element is a red flag raised amongst the workers, symbolizing the emergence of the socialist movement. The basic message of the image is a critique of the capitalist system, depicting a hierarchy of power and wealth. It illustrates a working-class supporting all others, and if it would withdraw their support from the system it could topple the existing social order. This type of criticism of capitalism is attributed to the French socialist Louis Blanc.” ref

“Anti-capitalism is a political ideology and movement encompassing a variety of attitudes and ideas that oppose capitalism. In this sense, anti-capitalists are those who wish to replace capitalism with another type of economic system, usually some form of socialism. Socialism advocates public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals, with an egalitarian method of compensation. Libertarian socialists believe if freedom is valued, then society must work towards a system in which individuals have the power to decide economic issues along with political issues. Libertarian socialists seek to replace unjustified authority with direct democracy, voluntary federation, and popular autonomy in all aspects of life, including physical communities and economic enterprises.” ref

“Within anarchism there emerged a critique of wage slavery, which refers to a situation perceived as quasi-voluntary slavery, where a person’s livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate. It is a negatively connoted term used to draw an analogy between slavery and wage labor by focusing on similarities between owning and renting a person. The term wage slavery has been used to criticize economic exploitation and social stratification, with the former seen primarily as unequal bargaining power between labor and capital (particularly when workers are paid comparatively low wages, e.g. in sweatshops), and the latter as a lack of workers’ self-management, fulfilling job choices and leisure in an economy.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Advocating Anarchism: Morality, Non-coercion, Anti-hierarchy, Solidarity, Internationalism, Mutualism, Cooperationism, Empowermentism, etc.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

People don’t commonly teach religious history, even that of their own claimed religion. No, rather they teach a limited “pro their religion” history of their religion from a religious perspective favorable to the religion of choice. 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref 

Animism: Respecting the Living World by Graham Harvey 

“How have human cultures engaged with and thought about animals, plants, rocks, clouds, and other elements in their natural surroundings? Do animals and other natural objects have a spirit or soul? What is their relationship to humans? In this new study, Graham Harvey explores current and past animistic beliefs and practices of Native Americans, Maori, Aboriginal Australians, and eco-pagans. He considers the varieties of animism found in these cultures as well as their shared desire to live respectfully within larger natural communities. Drawing on his extensive casework, Harvey also considers the linguistic, performative, ecological, and activist implications of these different animisms.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

We are like believing machines we vacuum up ideas, like Velcro sticks to almost everything. We accumulate beliefs that we allow to negatively influence our lives, often without realizing it. Our willingness must be to alter skewed beliefs that impend our balance or reason, which allows us to achieve new positive thinking and accurate outcomes.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Low Gods “Earth” or Tutelary deity and High Gods “Sky” or Supreme deity

“An Earth goddess is a deification of the Earth. Earth goddesses are often associated with the “chthonic” deities of the underworld. Ki and Ninhursag are Mesopotamian earth goddesses. In Greek mythology, the Earth is personified as Gaia, corresponding to Roman Terra, Indic Prithvi/Bhūmi, etc. traced to an “Earth Mother” complementary to the “Sky Father” in Proto-Indo-European religion. Egyptian mythology exceptionally has a sky goddess and an Earth god.” ref

“A mother goddess is a goddess who represents or is a personification of nature, motherhood, fertility, creation, destruction or who embodies the bounty of the Earth. When equated with the Earth or the natural world, such goddesses are sometimes referred to as Mother Earth or as the Earth Mother. In some religious traditions or movements, Heavenly Mother (also referred to as Mother in Heaven or Sky Mother) is the wife or feminine counterpart of the Sky father or God the Father.” ref

“Any masculine sky god is often also king of the gods, taking the position of patriarch within a pantheon. Such king gods are collectively categorized as “sky father” deities, with a polarity between sky and earth often being expressed by pairing a “sky father” god with an “earth mother” goddess (pairings of a sky mother with an earth father are less frequent). A main sky goddess is often the queen of the gods and may be an air/sky goddess in her own right, though she usually has other functions as well with “sky” not being her main. In antiquity, several sky goddesses in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Near East were called Queen of Heaven. Neopagans often apply it with impunity to sky goddesses from other regions who were never associated with the term historically. The sky often has important religious significance. Many religions, both polytheistic and monotheistic, have deities associated with the sky.” ref

“In comparative mythology, sky father is a term for a recurring concept in polytheistic religions of a sky god who is addressed as a “father”, often the father of a pantheon and is often either a reigning or former King of the Gods. The concept of “sky father” may also be taken to include Sun gods with similar characteristics, such as Ra. The concept is complementary to an “earth mother“. “Sky Father” is a direct translation of the Vedic Dyaus Pita, etymologically descended from the same Proto-Indo-European deity name as the Greek Zeûs Pater and Roman Jupiter and Germanic Týr, Tir or Tiwaz, all of which are reflexes of the same Proto-Indo-European deity’s name, *Dyēus Ph₂tḗr. While there are numerous parallels adduced from outside of Indo-European mythology, there are exceptions (e.g. In Egyptian mythology, Nut is the sky mother and Geb is the earth father).” ref

Tutelary deity

“A tutelary (also tutelar) is a deity or spirit who is a guardian, patron, or protector of a particular place, geographic feature, person, lineage, nation, culture, or occupation. The etymology of “tutelary” expresses the concept of safety and thus of guardianship. In late Greek and Roman religion, one type of tutelary deity, the genius, functions as the personal deity or daimon of an individual from birth to death. Another form of personal tutelary spirit is the familiar spirit of European folklore.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Korean shamanism, jangseung and sotdae were placed at the edge of villages to frighten off demons. They were also worshiped as deities. Seonangshin is the patron deity of the village in Korean tradition and was believed to embody the Seonangdang. In Philippine animism, Diwata or Lambana are deities or spirits that inhabit sacred places like mountains and mounds and serve as guardians. Such as: Maria Makiling is the deity who guards Mt. Makiling and Maria Cacao and Maria Sinukuan. In Shinto, the spirits, or kami, which give life to human bodies come from nature and return to it after death. Ancestors are therefore themselves tutelaries to be worshiped. And similarly, Native American beliefs such as Tonás, tutelary animal spirit among the Zapotec and Totems, familial or clan spirits among the Ojibwe, can be animals.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Austronesian beliefs such as: Atua (gods and spirits of the Polynesian peoples such as the Māori or the Hawaiians), Hanitu (Bunun of Taiwan‘s term for spirit), Hyang (Kawi, Sundanese, Javanese, and Balinese Supreme Being, in ancient Java and Bali mythology and this spiritual entity, can be either divine or ancestral), Kaitiaki (New Zealand Māori term used for the concept of guardianship, for the sky, the sea, and the land), Kawas (mythology) (divided into 6 groups: gods, ancestors, souls of the living, spirits of living things, spirits of lifeless objects, and ghosts), Tiki (Māori mythology, Tiki is the first man created by either Tūmatauenga or Tāne and represents deified ancestors found in most Polynesian cultures). ” ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref, ref

Mesopotamian Tutelary Deities can be seen as ones related to City-States 

“Historical city-states included Sumerian cities such as Uruk and Ur; Ancient Egyptian city-states, such as Thebes and Memphis; the Phoenician cities (such as Tyre and Sidon); the five Philistine city-states; the Berber city-states of the Garamantes; the city-states of ancient Greece (the poleis such as Athens, Sparta, Thebes, and Corinth); the Roman Republic (which grew from a city-state into a vast empire); the Italian city-states from the Middle Ages to the early modern period, such as Florence, Siena, Ferrara, Milan (which as they grew in power began to dominate neighboring cities) and Genoa and Venice, which became powerful thalassocracies; the Mayan and other cultures of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica (including cities such as Chichen Itza, Tikal, Copán and Monte Albán); the central Asian cities along the Silk Road; the city-states of the Swahili coast; Ragusa; states of the medieval Russian lands such as Novgorod and Pskov; and many others.” ref

“The Uruk period (ca. 4000 to 3100 BCE; also known as Protoliterate period) of Mesopotamia, named after the Sumerian city of Uruk, this period saw the emergence of urban life in Mesopotamia and the Sumerian civilization. City-States like Uruk and others had a patron tutelary City Deity along with a Priest-King.” ref

“Chinese folk religion, both past, and present, includes myriad tutelary deities. Exceptional individuals, highly cultivated sages, and prominent ancestors can be deified and honored after death. Lord Guan is the patron of military personnel and police, while Mazu is the patron of fishermen and sailors. Such as Tu Di Gong (Earth Deity) is the tutelary deity of a locality, and each individual locality has its own Earth Deity and Cheng Huang Gong (City God) is the guardian deity of an individual city, worshipped by local officials and locals since imperial times.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) in Hinduism, personal tutelary deities are known as ishta-devata, while family tutelary deities are known as Kuladevata. Gramadevata are guardian deities of villages. Devas can also be seen as tutelary. Shiva is the patron of yogis and renunciants. City goddesses include: Mumbadevi (Mumbai), Sachchika (Osian); Kuladevis include: Ambika (Porwad), and Mahalakshmi. In NorthEast India Meitei mythology and religion (Sanamahism) of Manipur, there are various types of tutelary deities, among which Lam Lais are the most predominant ones. Tibetan Buddhism has Yidam as a tutelary deity. Dakini is the patron of those who seek knowledge.” ref

“A tutelary (also tutelar) The Greeks also thought deities guarded specific places: for instance, Athena was the patron goddess of the city of Athens. Socrates spoke of hearing the voice of his personal spirit or daimonion:

You have often heard me speak of an oracle or sign which comes to me … . This sign I have had ever since I was a child. The sign is a voice which comes to me and always forbids me to do something which I am going to do, but never commands me to do anything, and this is what stands in the way of my being a politician.” ref

“Tutelary deities who guard and preserve a place or a person are fundamental to ancient Roman religion. The tutelary deity of a man was his Genius, that of a woman her Juno. In the Imperial era, the Genius of the Emperor was a focus of Imperial cult. An emperor might also adopt a major deity as his personal patron or tutelary, as Augustus did Apollo. Precedents for claiming the personal protection of a deity were established in the Republican era, when for instance the Roman dictator Sulla advertised the goddess Victory as his tutelary by holding public games (ludi) in her honor.” ref

“Each town or city had one or more tutelary deities, whose protection was considered particularly vital in time of war and siege. Rome itself was protected by a goddess whose name was to be kept ritually secret on pain of death (for a supposed case, see Quintus Valerius Soranus). The Capitoline Triad of Juno, Jupiter, and Minerva were also tutelaries of Rome. The Italic towns had their own tutelary deities. Juno often had this function, as at the Latin town of Lanuvium and the Etruscan city of Veii, and was often housed in an especially grand temple on the arx (citadel) or other prominent or central location. The tutelary deity of Praeneste was Fortuna, whose oracle was renowned.” ref

“The Roman ritual of evocatio was premised on the belief that a town could be made vulnerable to military defeat if the power of its tutelary deity were diverted outside the city, perhaps by the offer of superior cult at Rome. The depiction of some goddesses such as the Magna Mater (Great Mother, or Cybele) as “tower-crowned” represents their capacity to preserve the city. A town in the provinces might adopt a deity from within the Roman religious sphere to serve as its guardian, or syncretize its own tutelary with such; for instance, a community within the civitas of the Remi in Gaul adopted Apollo as its tutelary, and at the capital of the Remi (present-day Rheims), the tutelary was Mars Camulus.” ref 

Household deity (a kind of or related to a Tutelary deity)

“A household deity is a deity or spirit that protects the home, looking after the entire household or certain key members. It has been a common belief in paganism as well as in folklore across many parts of the world. Household deities fit into two types; firstly, a specific deity – typically a goddess – often referred to as a hearth goddess or domestic goddess who is associated with the home and hearth, such as the ancient Greek Hestia.” ref

“The second type of household deities are those that are not one singular deity, but a type, or species of animistic deity, who usually have lesser powers than major deities. This type was common in the religions of antiquity, such as the Lares of ancient Roman religion, the Gashin of Korean shamanism, and Cofgodas of Anglo-Saxon paganism. These survived Christianisation as fairy-like creatures existing in folklore, such as the Anglo-Scottish Brownie and Slavic Domovoy.” ref

“Household deities were usually worshipped not in temples but in the home, where they would be represented by small idols (such as the teraphim of the Bible, often translated as “household gods” in Genesis 31:19 for example), amulets, paintings, or reliefs. They could also be found on domestic objects, such as cosmetic articles in the case of Tawaret. The more prosperous houses might have a small shrine to the household god(s); the lararium served this purpose in the case of the Romans. The gods would be treated as members of the family and invited to join in meals, or be given offerings of food and drink.” ref

“In many religions, both ancient and modern, a god would preside over the home. Certain species, or types, of household deities, existed. An example of this was the Roman Lares. Many European cultures retained house spirits into the modern period. Some examples of these include:

• Brownie (Scotland and England) or Hob (England) / Kobold (Germany) / Goblin / Hobgoblin
• Domovoy (Slavic)
• Nisse (Norwegian or Danish) / Tomte (Swedish) / Tonttu (Finnish)
• Húsvættir (Norse)” ref

“Although the cosmic status of household deities was not as lofty as that of the Twelve Olympians or the Aesir, they were also jealous of their dignity and also had to be appeased with shrines and offerings, however humble. Because of their immediacy they had arguably more influence on the day-to-day affairs of men than the remote gods did. Vestiges of their worship persisted long after Christianity and other major religions extirpated nearly every trace of the major pagan pantheons. Elements of the practice can be seen even today, with Christian accretions, where statues to various saints (such as St. Francis) protect gardens and grottos. Even the gargoyles found on older churches, could be viewed as guardians partitioning a sacred space.” ref

“For centuries, Christianity fought a mop-up war against these lingering minor pagan deities, but they proved tenacious. For example, Martin Luther‘s Tischreden have numerous – quite serious – references to dealing with kobolds. Eventually, rationalism and the Industrial Revolution threatened to erase most of these minor deities, until the advent of romantic nationalism rehabilitated them and embellished them into objects of literary curiosity in the 19th century. Since the 20th century this literature has been mined for characters for role-playing games, video games, and other fantasy personae, not infrequently invested with invented traits and hierarchies somewhat different from their mythological and folkloric roots.” ref

“In contradistinction to both Herbert Spencer and Edward Burnett Tylor, who defended theories of animistic origins of ancestor worship, Émile Durkheim saw its origin in totemism. In reality, this distinction is somewhat academic, since totemism may be regarded as a particularized manifestation of animism, and something of a synthesis of the two positions was attempted by Sigmund Freud. In Freud’s Totem and Taboo, both totem and taboo are outward expressions or manifestations of the same psychological tendency, a concept which is complementary to, or which rather reconciles, the apparent conflict. Freud preferred to emphasize the psychoanalytic implications of the reification of metaphysical forces, but with particular emphasis on its familial nature. This emphasis underscores, rather than weakens, the ancestral component.” ref

“William Edward Hearn, a noted classicist, and jurist, traced the origin of domestic deities from the earliest stages as an expression of animism, a belief system thought to have existed also in the neolithic, and the forerunner of Indo-European religion. In his analysis of the Indo-European household, in Chapter II “The House Spirit”, Section 1, he states:

The belief which guided the conduct of our forefathers was … the spirit rule of dead ancestors.” ref

“In Section 2 he proceeds to elaborate:

It is thus certain that the worship of deceased ancestors is a vera causa, and not a mere hypothesis. …

In the other European nations, the Slavs, the Teutons, and the Kelts, the House Spirit appears with no less distinctness. … [T]he existence of that worship does not admit of doubt. … The House Spirits had a multitude of other names which it is needless here to enumerate, but all of which are more or less expressive of their friendly relations with man. … In [England] … [h]e is the Brownie. … In Scotland this same Brownie is well known. He is usually described as attached to particular families, with whom he has been known to reside for centuries, threshing the corn, cleaning the house, and performing similar household tasks. His favorite gratification was milk and honey.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

ref, ref

Hinduism around 3,700 to 3,500 years old. ref

 Judaism around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (The first writing in the bible was “Paleo-Hebrew” dated to around 3,000 years ago Khirbet Qeiyafa is the site of an ancient fortress city overlooking the Elah Valley. And many believe the religious Jewish texts were completed around 2,500) ref, ref

Judaism is around 3,450 or 3,250 years old. (“Paleo-Hebrew” 3,000 years ago and Torah 2,500 years ago)

“Judaism is an Abrahamic, its roots as an organized religion in the Middle East during the Bronze Age. Some scholars argue that modern Judaism evolved from Yahwism, the religion of ancient Israel and Judah, by the late 6th century BCE, and is thus considered to be one of the oldest monotheistic religions.” ref

“Yahwism is the name given by modern scholars to the religion of ancient Israel, essentially polytheistic, with a plethora of gods and goddesses. Heading the pantheon was Yahweh, the national god of the Israelite kingdoms of Israel and Judah, with his consort, the goddess Asherah; below them were second-tier gods and goddesses such as Baal, Shamash, Yarikh, Mot, and Astarte, all of whom had their own priests and prophets and numbered royalty among their devotees, and a third and fourth tier of minor divine beings, including the mal’ak, the messengers of the higher gods, who in later times became the angels of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Yahweh, however, was not the ‘original’ god of Israel “Isra-El”; it is El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon, whose name forms the basis of the name “Israel”, and none of the Old Testament patriarchs, the tribes of Israel, the Judges, or the earliest monarchs, have a Yahwistic theophoric name (i.e., one incorporating the name of Yahweh).” ref

“El is a Northwest Semitic word meaning “god” or “deity“, or referring (as a proper name) to any one of multiple major ancient Near Eastern deities. A rarer form, ‘ila, represents the predicate form in Old Akkadian and in Amorite. The word is derived from the Proto-Semitic *ʔil-, meaning “god”. Specific deities known as ‘El or ‘Il include the supreme god of the ancient Canaanite religion and the supreme god of East Semitic speakers in Mesopotamia’s Early Dynastic Period. ʼĒl is listed at the head of many pantheons. In some Canaanite and Ugaritic sources, ʼĒl played a role as father of the gods, of creation, or both. For example, in the Ugaritic texts, ʾil mlk is understood to mean “ʼĒl the King” but ʾil hd as “the god Hadad“. The Semitic root ʾlh (Arabic ʾilāh, Aramaic ʾAlāh, ʾElāh, Hebrew ʾelōah) may be ʾl with a parasitic h, and ʾl may be an abbreviated form of ʾlh. In Ugaritic the plural form meaning “gods” is ʾilhm, equivalent to Hebrew ʾelōhîm “powers”. In the Hebrew texts this word is interpreted as being semantically singular for “god” by biblical commentators. However the documentary hypothesis for the Old Testament (corresponds to the Jewish Torah) developed originally in the 1870s, identifies these that different authors – the Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and the Priestly source – were responsible for editing stories from a polytheistic religion into those of a monotheistic religion. Inconsistencies that arise between monotheism and polytheism in the texts are reflective of this hypothesis.” ref

Jainism around 2,599 – 2,527 years old. ref

Confucianism around 2,600 – 2,551 years old. ref

Buddhism around 2,563/2,480 – 2,483/2,400 years old. ref

Christianity around 2,o00 years old. ref

Shinto around 1,305 years old. ref

Islam around 1407–1385 years old. ref

Sikhism around 548–478 years old. ref

Bahá’í around 200–125 years old. ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Expressions of Atheistic Thinking:

• Around 2,600 years ago, Ajita Kesakambali, ancient Indian philosopher, who is the first known proponent of Indian materialism. ref
• Around 2,535 to 2,475 years ago, Heraclitus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher, a native of the Greek city Ephesus, Ionia, on the coast of Anatolia, also known as Asia Minor or modern Turkey. ref
• Around 2,500 to 2,400 years ago, according to The Story of Civilization book series certain African pygmy tribes have no identifiable gods, spirits, or religious beliefs or rituals, and even what burials accrue are without ceremony. ref
• Around 2,490 to 2,430 years ago, Empedocles, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher and a citizen of Agrigentum, a Greek city in Sicily. ref
• Around 2,460 to 2,370 years ago, Democritus, Greek pre-Socratic philosopher considered to be the “father of modern science” possibly had some disbelief amounting to atheism. ref
• Around 2,399 years ago or so, Socrates, a famous Greek philosopher was tried for sinfulness by teaching doubt of state gods. ref
• Around 2,341 to 2,270 years ago, Epicurus, a Greek philosopher known for composing atheistic critics and famously stated, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ref

This last expression by Epicurus, seems to be an expression of Axiological Atheism. To understand and utilize value or actually possess “Value Conscious/Consciousness” to both give a strong moral “axiological” argument (the problem of evil) as well as use it to fortify humanism and positive ethical persuasion of human helping and care responsibilities. Because value-blindness gives rise to sociopathic/psychopathic evil.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):

Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism

My Website, My Blog, & Short-writing or Quotes, My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com