my restraining order dot com

Monrovians - Unite!   For those times when you find yourself in need of a domestic violence restraining order.

Hayek - Individualism and Collectivism - Part 2

Monrovians - Unite!

We saw in Part 1 that the mechanism of socialism is primarily central control of all economic activity (and what activity may not be described in economic terms?).  It is the mechanism of socialism, not the desire for social justice, that those who believe in the inherent freedom of the individual object.  The central planner may plan well, plan poorly, or plan corruptly.

But what type of planning is meant by socialism?  The planning necessary to accomplish the distributive ideal, of course.  That is, whatever planning is necessary to distribute goods and services in a way that those in power believe is "just." 

Hayek isolates another reason that Socialism and Central Planning have an initial appeal.

Planning owes its popularity largely to the fact that everybody desires, of course, that we should handle our common problems as rationally as possible and that, in so doing, we should use as much foresight as we can command.  In this sense, everybody who is not a complete fatalist is a planner, every political act is (or ought to be) an act of planning.

So, Hayek notes, virtually everyone is in favor of planning.  What is the difference then, between those who believe in the general economic freedom of the individual and the socialist?

The question is whether for this purpose it is better that the holder of coercive power [government] should confine himself in general to creating conditions under which the knowledge and initiative of individuals are given the best scope so that they can plan most successfully; or whether a rational utilization of our resources requires central direction and organization of all our activities according to some consciously constructed blueprint.

Hayek also notes that it is unnecessary to argue that all decisions should be left to the individual.  Those in favor of economic freedom contend that effective competition is a better way of guiding individual efforts than any other, where it can be created.  In order for competition to work beneficially, a carefully thought-out legal framework is required and . . . neither the past nor present legal rules are free from serious defects.  Where this is not possible, then resort may be had to other more coercive methods.

Economic liberalism is opposed, however, to competition being supplanted by inferior methods of coordinating individual efforts.  And it regards competition as superior not only because it is in most circumstances the most efficient method known but even more because it is the only method by which our activities can be adjusted to each other without coercive or arbitrary intervention of authority.  Indeed, one of the main arguments in favor of competition is that it dispenses with the need for "conscious social control" and that it gives individuals a chance to decide whether the prospects of a particular occupation are sufficient to compensate for the disadvantages and risks associated with it.

Hayek next hints at the reason economic competition works - the price mechanism.  All other things being equal, the price of goods and services reflects a vast multitude of considerations in one easy number - the price.  Just contemplate the price of a complex machine, with parts created all over the world, from raw materials throughout the world, each of which faces competitors for those same raw materials, finished products, and the labor and capital that went into their production.

Imagine that one of the parts may be made from either copper or steel.  If copper is desperately needed in one part of the world, for a highly sought-after device which requires copper, the people who want the copper are going to bid for the copper, and not for steel.  This would cause the relative price of the copper to rise, and make it more likely that those who don't require copper will choose steel instead.  That becomes a small factor in the price of the machine made with the part.  Multiply this same type of mechanism by the number of parts in the machine, to see that the one number (price) of the machine has very efficiently incorporated the results of thousands, and even millions, of decisions around the globe.

Give a central planner control over only one small part of the puzzle, and it is obvious that no central planner can as efficiently account for the millions of preferences the same way that the price mechanism can.  Even more important, controlling only a small part of the puzzle will not achieve the goal of the central planner - tell people they can't use copper, they will switch to steel.  No steel, and they will switch to plastic, or some other material.  This throws the whole plan out of whack, since the could not anticipate in advance how many will choose steel, how many plastic, etc.  This occurs not because people are evil or obstinate, but because their own needs and wants are different from those of the central planners.

How do I know this?  Because if everyone shared the same needs and wants of the central planners, in the same quantity and with the same intensity, the result would occur automatically in a free society without the need for a central planning mechanism.  Central control of all economic activity (i.e., what we are calling planning) is necessary only to the extent that people do NOT want the same thing as the central planners.

Hayek - Individualism and Collectivism, part1

Monrovians - Unite!  Hayek's third chapter is one of definition - making sure that we are all thinking the same thing when we use certain words.

Socialism may mean, and is often used to describe, merely the ideals of social justice, greater equality, and security, which are the aims of socialism.  But it means also the particular method by which most socialists hope to attain these ends and which many competent people regard as the only method by which they can be fully and quickly attained.  In this sense socialism means the elimination of private enterprise, of private ownership of the means of production, and the creation of a system of "planned economy" in which the entrepreneur working for profit is replaced by the central planning body.

Hayek makes the brilliant point that "central planning" is necessary to redistribute income so that all have equal incomes, but is also the same device that can be used to politically redistribute income in ways that we would all consider unjust - to favor a particular group over others.  Hayek then states that it may be unfair to use socialism as a term to describe central planning that seeks other ends, and uses the term "collectivism" to describe them.  Socialism is, then, a sub-species of collectivism.  Hayek points out that the objections of the believers in individual freedom have the same objections to all forms of collectivism, and the critique of collectivism applies also to socialism.

Put another way, state control and central planning can be used for good or for evil.  There is nothing inherent in central planning that requires that it be done well or poorly, for good aims or for corrupt ones.  It merely gives the central planner all power and authority, in the hope (expectation?) that the planners will use that power justly and wisely.  This is a crucial insight to understanding the critique of collectivism by the idealist who wants only equality, social justice, etc.

Hayek - The Great Utopia - Meaning of Freedom Distorted

Monrovians - Unite!  Hayek's second chapter is entitled The Great Utopia.

Hayek notes that by 1944, large numbers of people supported Socialism, believing that a Socialist system would bring freedom and justice.  He explains how the meaning of the word "freedom"  had been distorted by socialists to hide the truth about socialism's restriction of freedom with the inevitable state-sponsored injustice.

Hayek points out that:

Where freedom was concerned the founders of socialism made no  bones about their intentions.  Freedom of thought they regarded as the root-evil of nineteenth-century society, and the first of modern planners, Saint-Simon, even predicted that those who did not obey his proposed planning boards would be "treated as cattle."

In the 1800s, those in favor of Socialism were in favor of central planning and control (a lot like the Kings and Queens of Europe), while those in favor of Democracy celebrated the common man's ability to control his or her own future, and to vote accordingly.  At the time, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:

Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it.  Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number.  Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality.  But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

When it became obvious that the forces of Democracy would carry the day, the socialists began a campaign to gain the allegeiance of those in favor of Democracy, by changing the meaning of the word freedom.

To . . . harness to its cart the strongest of all political motives - the craving for freedom - socialism began increasingly to make use of the promise of a "new freedom."  . . . The coming of socialism was to bring "economic freedom."

The subtle change in meaning to which the word "freedom" was subjected . . . is important.  To the great apostles of political freedom the word had meant freedom from coercion, freedom from the arbitrary power of other men, release from the ties which left the individual no choice but obedience to the orders of a superior to whom he was attached.  The new freedom promised [by the socialists], however, was to be a freedom from necessity; release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choices of all of us, although for some very much more than for others.

Freedom in this sense [that is, the socialist's new freedom] is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth. . . . The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for an equal distribution of wealth.

Recall that the "old" demands of the socialists were for centralized planning, power to be wielded by the elites only, with anyone who disagreed with the central planning board to be "treated like cattle."  Of course, that philosophy had not proven very popular, so the socialists, like any good public relations outfit, decided to hide their true desires behind words that had carried the day - freedom.  Socialists began claiming that they were in favor of "Economic Freedom", "Democratic Socialism" and "Economic Justice" - and successfully disguised the fact that they wanted central planning, not economic freedom in economic affairs, central planning, not decentralized democracy where decisions are made by the individual, and identical economic results for everyone regardless of their choices, an unjust restribution of wealth by force, the opposite of justice.

Seveal  years earlier, W.H. Chamberlain, who in twelve years in Russia as an American correspondent had seen all his ideals shattered, summed up the conclusions of his studies there and in Germany and Italy in the statement that "socialism is certain to prove, in the beginning at least, the road NOT to freedom, but to dictatorship and counter-dictatorsihps, to civil war of the fiercest kind.  Socialism achieved and maintain by democratic means seems definitely to belong to the world of "utopias."  Similarly a British writer, F.A. Voigt, after many years of close observation of developments in Europe as a foreign correspondent, concludes that "Marxism has led to Fascism and National Socialism, because, in all essentials, it is Fascism and National Socialism."  And Walter Lippmann has arrived at the conviction that "the generation to which we belong is now learning from experience what happens when men retreat from freedom to a coercive organization of their affairs.  Though they promise themselves a more abundant life, they must in practice renounce it; as the organized direction increases, the variety of ends must give way to uniformity.  That is the nemesis of the planned society and the authoritarian principle in human affairs."

Note that  Chamberlain had visited communist Russia, Nazi Germany, and Facist Italy.  The communists sought international socialism (i.e., world government), while the Nazis were National Socialists.

Science Advanced Fastest When Individuals Were Given Freedom

Monrovians - Unite!  In the first chapter of The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek discusses the history of freedom and the celebration of the individual - a road he believes Western civilization, and particularly the socialists, have abandoned.  Hayek is a recipient of the Presidential Medical of Freedom, was a pioneer in monetary theory, and co-winner of the Nobel Memorial Price in Economics.

In discussing the history of freedom for individuals, Hayek writes:

Perhaps the greatest result of the unchaining of individual energies was the marvelous growth of science which followed the march of individual liberty from Italy to England and beyond.  [Prior to this time] . . . the few attempts towards a more extended industrial use of mechanical inventions, some extraordinarily advanced, were promptly suppressed, and the desire for knowledge was stifled, so long as the dominant views were held to be binding for all:  the beliefs of the great majority on what was right and proper were allowed to bear the way of the individual innovator.  Only since industrial freedom opened the path to the free use of new knowledge, only since everything could be tried -- if somebody could be found to back it at his own risk -- and, it should be added, as often as not from outside the authorities officially entrusted with the cultivation of learning, has science made the great strides which in the last hundred and fifty years have changed the face of the world.

Hayek notes that "wherever the barriers to the free exercise of ingenuity were removed, man became rapidly able to satisfy ever widening ranges of desire. . . . [a]nd the rising standard soon led to the discovery of very dark spots in society, spots which men were no longer willing to tolerate."

Unbridled freedom, Hayek seems to believe, is the cause of enormous progress in society, but it does have downsides.  One Hundred Fifty Years of unparallelled progress led SOME to oppose ALL government regulations. 

The fundamental principle that in the ordering of our affairs we should make as much use as possible of the spontaneous forces of society, and resort as little as possible to coercion, is capable of an infinite variety of applications.  There is, in particular, all the difference between deliberately creating a system within which competition will work as beneficially as possible and passively accepting institutions as they are.

Hayek then explains how it came about that those in favor of little or no government regulation came to be seen primarily as naysayers - what we might call, the party of NO.  (Remember that Hayek was writing fifty years ago):

. . . for immediate improvement [the doctrine of freedom] had to rely largely on the gradual increase of wealth which freedom brought about, it had constantly to fight proposals which threatened this progress.  It came be regarded as a "negative" creed because it could offer to particular individuals little more than a share in the common progress - a progress which came to be taken more and more for granted and was no longer recognized as the result of the policy of freedom.  It might even be said that the very success of [freedom] became the cause of its decline.  Because of the success already achieved, man became increasingly unwilling to tolerate the evils still with him which now appeared both unbearable and unnecessary.

* * *

According to the views now dominant, the question is no longer how we can make the best use of the spontaneous forces found in a free society.  We have in effect undertaken to dispense with the forces which produced unforeseen results and to replace the impersonal and anonymous mechanism of the market by collective and "conscious" direction of all social forces to deliberately chosen goals.

Hayek then describes the crisis created in Western civilization, as follows:

, , , the people of the West continued to import German ideas and were even induced to believe that their own former convictions [regarding freedom] had merely been rationalizations of selfish interests, that free trade was a doctrine invented to further British interests, and that the political ideals of England and America were hopelessly outmoded and a thing to be ashamed of.

 This, suggests Hayek, allowed socialist ideas to gain prominence, ultimately leading to the International Socialists (the communists) and the national socialists (the Nazis). - both of which committed genoicide against their own citizens.  Hayek seems to tie the decline of the doctrine of freedom and free markets to an abandonment of the primacy of the individual, a taking for granted of the material progress that has resulted from freedom and free markets, and the idea that our Founding Principles had become outdated.

Road to Serfdom - Abandoned Road

Monrovians - Unite!  F.A. Hayek, author of The Road to Serfdom, captured the essence of the conflicts of ideas we are now struggling with in the United States.  This is the first of what I hope is a series of entries summarizing and discussing his important book.

Hayek first outlines the fact that we have abandoned, in recent times, the belief in the value and primary of the individual.  The importance of each individual is a basic foundation of Western Civilization.

We have progressively abandoned that freedom in economic affairs without which personal and political freedom has never existed in the past.  Although we had been warned by some of the great political thinkers of the nineteenth century, by Tocqueville and Lord Action, that socialism means slavery, we have steadily moved in the direction of socialism.  And now that we have seen a new form of slavery arise before our eyes, we have so completely forgotten the warning that it scarcely occurs to us that the two things may be connected.

Then:

Individualism has a bad name today, and term has come to be connected with egotism and selfishness.  But the individualism of which we speak in contrast to socialism and all other forms of collectivism has no necessary connection with these.  . . . But the essential features of that individualism which, from elements provided by Christianity and the philosophy of classical antiquity, was first fully developed during the Renaissance and has since grown and spread into what we know as Western civilization - are the respect for the individual man qua man, that is, the recognition of his own views and tastes as supreme in his own sphere, however narrow that may be circumscribed, and the belief that it is desireable that men should develop their own individual gifts and bents.

Hayek then explains how the growth of the importance of the individual is closely connected to economic freedom.

The gradual transformation of a rigidly organized heirarchical system into one where men could at least attempt to shape their own life, where man gained the opportunity of knowing and choosing between different forms of life, is closely associated with the growth of commerce.  . . . During the whole of this modern period of European history the general directon of social development was one of freeing the individual from the ties which had bound him to the customary or prescribed ways in the pursuit of ordinary activities.  The conscious realization that the spontaneous and uncontrolled efforts of individuals were capable of producing a complex order of economic activities could come only after this development had made some progress.  The subsequent elaboration of a consistent argument in favor of economic freedom was the outcome of a free growth of economic activity which had been the undesigned and unforeseen by-product of political freedom.

Hayek begins to lay out the idea that without economic freedom, we cannot maintain personal and political freedom.

The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek (2007 U. Chicago Press)

Paradise Lost - Book II - Various Evil Character Traits Described

Monrovians - Unite!  After reading Book II of Paradise Lost, I begin to understand why this poem is so popular.

Book II opens with Satan and others of his ilk arguing whether or not to make another assault on Heaven.  The setting is before the Creation of Man and the universe.

In imagining the dialogue between the various evil spirits, Milton gives us insight into the human condition.

One character, a king by the name of Moloch, wanted to be equal in strength to God.  If he could not be God's equal, Moluch preferred not to exist at all.  Moluch argues for open and all out war.  He cares not for subterfuge or contrivances.  Why, literally, rot in hell when each moment could instead by spent in an all-out frontal assault on Heaven?  If God is invincible, then Moluch argues that Satan and the others must so upset Him that they will all be destroyed - and thus end their otherwise eternal suffering.  If they have nothing more to lose, then what do they have to fear, asks Moluch?  Even if they cannot actually overcome God, they can instead constantly alarm Him - and thus gain, at least, some measure of revenge.  They can take pleasure, it seems, in the struggle.  Doesn't this remind you of different groups of people who get a perverse pleasure in throwing a monkey wrench into anything and everything?  If I can't have it, no one can!  If I'm not happy, no one will be happy!

On the other side rose up a evil character named Belial, a dignified and graceful looking creature, who unfortunately was "all false and hollow."

. . . 'though his tongue
Dropped manna, and could make the worse appear
the better reason, to perplex and dash
maturest counsels: for his thoughts were low;
To vice industrious, but to nobler deeds
Timorous and slothful: yet he pleased the ear, . . .

Are we not reminded in these times of this type of character - One whose words drop like manna, and who perplexes and destroys even the maturest contemplation, yet whose thoughts are low and who works hard for evil, but for good deeds is lazy and timid?  Certain lawyers, law professors, politicians anyone?

Belial points out that Moluch bases his courage on his utter despair, seeking only revenge.  Belial contends that Heaven is unassailable, and cannot be taken by surprise.  Belial notes that Moluch seeks to end all suffering by being destroyed.   Belial argues that this would be a sad cure, for they would lose all sense and motion, all intellectual being.  Besides, it is unknown whether God can destroy, and even if God could, He would surely not completely reverse His creation.

Will he, so wise, let loose at once his ire,
Belike through imptenceor unaware,
To give his enemies their wish, and end
Them in his anger whom his anger saves
To  punish endless?

Belial recognizes that God is All-Knowing, All-Powerful.  Belial argues that should God choose to punish them further, surely their fate could be worse.

War, therefore, open or concealed, alike
My voice dissuades; for what can force or guile
With him, or who deceives his mind, whose eye
Views all things at one view?  He from Heaven's height
All these our motions vain sees and derides,
Not more almighty to resist our might
Than wise to frustrate all our plots and wiles.

Belial argues that their fate is well deserved, and they should justly suffer the sentence of their conqueror.  God may forgive them, or they may grow more accustomed to hell, and at any event they still have hope if they do not offend God anew.  In other words, Belial counseled, because God cannot be deceived or tricked, and cannot be overcome . . . doing nothing - accepting their fate, which was well deserved.


Mammon then spoke in favor of staying where they were and creating as much evil as possible, but not a direct War on Heaven.  If one is at war, there is always a chance, argues Mammon.  Mammon states that he would not want to be forgiven by God, since if he was then allowed into heaven he would spend eternity worshiping the One that Mammon hates.  Better to live free and accountable to no one, argues Mammon.  The devils will essentially have their own glory in creating adversity and harming others.  Essentially, Mammon counsels them to take pride in doing evil.  We can always Imitate light, even if we are not of the light.  Essentially, Mammon argues for the terrorist strike, the occasional atrocity, but not all-out War.  Sound familiar?

Next spoke Beezlebub, the second highest in Hell next to Satan.  Beezlebub states they should instead learn more about Man, who is rumored to be created soon, and corrupt Man, in the hope that God will abolish His own creation, once it has been intermixed with Hell.  Beezlebub points out that the corruption of God's favored creation (man) would cause great pain to God.  At this, the entirety of Hell supports the plan.

Satan then announces that he alone will carry out the plan, search out this new creation, Man, and corrupt Man.  Satan's search for earth, and Man, is then described.

Milton sheds light, in Book II, on the motivations of various types of people who suffer the character flaws Milton places in various inhabitants of Hell.  Like most poetry, its a bit of work to figure out the meaning, and somewhat slow reading, but well worth the effort.  I find it sometimes helps to just read the work quickly, and first get the overall gist of a passage, before going back to decipher it word for word.

blog - obfuscated.org

Monrovians - Unite!  Another great Monrovia blog - since 2005 - Obfuscated.org

This blog cannot, and refuses to be, categorized in a few words.  You'll just have to check it out yourself.

Celebration for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception - December 8, 2009

Monrovians - Unite!  Know your local Churches and Spiritual traditions.

Monday, December 7, 2009, at Immaculate Conception Church, as many as 3,000 Monrovians will gather at 740 S. Shamrock Avenue, between 5:30 pm and 6:00 p.m. for a Celebration for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Son of God.  The Feast Day is actually December 8th, so the celebration will take place on its Eve.

Also celebrated will be the first anniversary of the Perpetual Adoration Chapel.

There will be a procession through the streets of Monrovia with the Blessed Sacrament, and the Church welcomes all Immaculate Conception families and friends to join the celebration.  Also present will be the Image of Our Lady of Guadalupe that is currently on pilgrimage.

There will be adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in the Church from 5:30 to 6:00 p.m., at which time the procession through the streets of Monrovia will begin.  After the procession, a Vigil Mass for the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary will take place, and the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe will be on display until approximately 10 pm.

At right is some of the stained glass in the Church that depicts the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

The celebration of the beginning of Advent, and also the beginning of the Church Year.  Advent is the season leading up to Christmas, at which Catholics celebrate Christ's coming into the world.  Catholics and Greek Orthodox believe that since God wanted a perfect vessel for His Son, Jesus, that by God's grace Mary was sinless when Christ was born.  Catholics believe that, to honor Jesus, Mary was born without Original Sin - i.e., Immaculate.  This celebration begins the new year, which is organized by, and celebrates, various aspects of  the Birth, Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus.

Paradise Lost - 1665

Monrovians - Unite!  Know your history and culture.

Milton's Paradise Lost is one of the greatest poems in the English language, first published in 1667.

The poem concerns the Christian story of the Fall of Man: the temptation of Adam and Eve by the fallen angel Satan and their expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Milton's purpose, stated in Book I, is to "justify the ways of God to men" and elucidate the conflict between God's eternal foresight and free will  The link above has been edited with more up-to-date language, and so is easier to read than the original.

He summarizes Satan's situation as follows:

So stretched out huge in length the Arch-fiend lay,
Chained on the burning lake; nor ever thence
Had risen, or heaved his head, but that the will
And high permission of all-ruling Heaven
Left him at large to his own dark designs,
That with reiterated crimes he might
Heap on himself damnation, while he sought
Evil to others, and enraged might see
How all his malice served but to bring forth
Infinite goodness, grace, and mercy, shewn
On Man by him seduced, but on himself
Treble confusion, wrath, and vengeance poured.

 He also wrote, for example:

The mind is its own place, and in it self
Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n.

 While not for everyone, the poem is divided into twelve books.  The first book summarizes the whole poem, while the remainder goes into more detail.  One can therefore obtain the gist of the poem and the poetry by reading the first book.

Satan is the first major character introduced in the poem. Satan is consigned to Hell after a failed rebellion to wrestle control of Heaven from God. Satan's desire to rebel against his creator stems from his unwillingness to accept the fact he is a created being, and that he is not self-sufficient.  This is a result of his extreme Pride. One of the ways he tries to justify his rebellion against God is by claiming that he and the angels are self-created, declaring the angels "self-begot, self-raised", thereby eliminating God’s authority over them as their creator.

Satan is narcissistic, self-pitying, and persuasive although his logic is almost always flawed, disingenuous, misguiding, or all three. Satan's persuasive powers are first evident when he makes arguments to his angel-followers as to why they should try to overthrow God. He argues that they ought to have equal rights to God and that Heaven is an unfair monarchy, stating,

Who can in reason then, or right, assume
Monarchy over such as live by right
His equals, if in power and splendor less,
In freedom equal? or can introduce
Law and edict on us, who without law
Err not? much less for this to be our Lord,
And look for adoration, to the abuse
Of those imperial titles, which assert
Our being ordained to govern, not to serve.

 The poem thus grapples with the tension between freedom and obedience to our Creator - the tension between unfettered license and the constraints that a free people voluntarily place upon themselves.  A subject we still grapple with today.

Captain John Smith - What did He Find in America?

Monrovians - Unite!  Know your History and Traditions.

The traditions and values of the Native Americans whom the European settlers first came into contact with are sometimes glorified by modern writers.  While there is no doubt that the pre-European civilizations on the North American continent had many long traditions, the suggestion is often implied (and sometimes stated outright) that all civilizations are of equal value.  Before accepting this premise, consider the human sacrifice practiced by the Native Americans in Virginia, as described by Captain John Smith.  Are you willing to agree that a culture that practices an annual sacrifice of children is equal in value to all others?

Captain John Smith wrote a Generall Historie of Virginia, New England, and the Summer Isles in 1624, covering the period from 1584 through 1624.  A digital version with updated spelling that makes for easier reading and searching has been created by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as part of its digital library Documenting the American South.  The scanned version of the book can be found on Google Books, here.
     In the Second Book, Smith describes the land and the people within 60 miles of Jamestown.

     Of their religion, he writes:

There is yet in Virginia no place discovered to be so Savage, in which they have not a Religion, Deer, and Bow, and Arrows. All things that are able to do them hurt beyond their prevention, they adore with their kind of divine worship; as the fire, water, lightning, thunder, our Ordnance, pieces, horses, etc. But their chief God they worship is the Devil. Him they call Okee, and serve him more of fear than love.

 Their Temples.

        In every Territory of a Werowance is a Temple and a Priest, two or three or more. Their principal Temple or place of superstition is at Vttamussack, at Pamavnkee, near unto which is a house, Temple, or place of Powhatans.
        Upon the top of certain red sandy hills in the woods, there are three great houses filled with images of their Kings, and Devils, and Tombs of their Predecessors. Those houses are near sixty foot in length built arbour-wise, after their building. This place they count so holy as that but the Priests and Kings dare come into them; nor the Salvages dare not go up the river in boats by it, but they solemnly cast some piece of copper, white beads, or Pocones into the river, for fear their Okee should be offended and revenged of them.

Thus, Fear was the first their Gods begot;

Till fear began, their Gods were not.

Sacrifices to the water.

        They have also certain Altar stones they call Parocorances, but these stand from their Temples, some by their houses, others in the woods and wildernesses, where they have had any extraordinary accident, or encounter. And as you travel, at those stones they will tell you the cause why they were there erected, which from age to age they instruct their children, as their best records of antiquities. Upon these they offer blood, Deer suet, and Tobacco. This they do when they return from the Wars, from hunting, and upon many other occasions. They have also another superstition that they use in storms, when the waters are rough in the Rivers and Sea coasts. Their Conjurers run to the water sides, or passing in their boats, after many hellish outcries and invocations, they cast Tobacco, Copper, Pocones, or such trash into the water, to pacify that God whom they think to be very angry in those storms. Before their dinners and suppers the better sort will take the first bit, and cast it in the fire, which is all the grace they are known to use.

 Their solemn Sacrifices of children, which they call Black-boyes.

        In some part of the Country they have yearly a sacrifice of children.  Such a one was at Quiyoughcohanock some ten miles from James Town, and thus performed.
     Fifteen of the properest young boys, between ten and fifteen years of age they painted white. Having brought them forth, the people spent the fore noon in dancing and singing about them with Rattles. In the afternoon they put those children to the root of a tree. By them all the men stood in a guard, every one having a Bastinado in his hand, made of reeds bound together. This made a lane between them all along, through which there were appointed five young men to fetch these children: so every one of the five went through the guard to fetch a child each after other by turns, the guard fiercely beating them with their Bastinadoes, and they patiently enduring and receiving all defending the children with their naked bodies from the unmerciful blows, that pay them soundly, though the children escape.
     All this while the women weep and cry out very passionately, providing mats, skins, moss, and dry wood, as things fitting their children's funerals. After the children were thus passed the guard, the guard tore down the trees, branches and boughs, with such violence that they rent the body, and made wreaths for their heads, or bedecked their hair with the leaves.
     What else was done with the children, was not seen, but they were all cast on a heap, in a valley as dead, where they made a great feast for all the company.
     The Werowance being demanded the meaning of this sacrifice, answered that the children were not all dead, but that the Okee or Devil did suck the blood from their left breast, who chanced to be his by lot, till they were dead, but the rest were kept in the wilderness by the young men till nine months were expired, during which time they must not converse with any, and of these were made their Priests and Conjurers. This sacrifice they held to be so necessary, that if they should omit it, their Okee or Devil, and all their other Quiyoughcosughes, which are their other Gods, would let them have no Deer, Turkeys, Corn, nor fish, and yet besides, he would make a great slaughter amongst them.