Calling someone a socialist, communist, or Marxist is still occasionally considered an insult in the United States. But what does it mean to be a “socialist”? Does America have elements of socialism, despite the frequent insistence that it is a capitalist and free-market society?   In many presidential election cycles, candidates debate economic policies and reforms that their opponents often label socialist or Marxist. Since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, confusion has increased over what these terms actually mean. Are any of the US’s Western allies considered socialists? Can socialism and free market economics coexist? Let us explore the complex history of socialism and its influence on the United States.   1848: Karl Marx Publishes the Communist Manifesto A statue of German socialist philosopher Karl Marx in London, with monuments of the controversial theorist popular across Europe. Source: American Institute for Economic Research   The modern concept of socialism was birthed in the 1840s by German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who published The Communist Manifesto. Marx and Engels, creating Marxist theory, argued that it was natural for owners of capital (factories), called capitalists, to exploit workers for surplus value. To protect the workers, Marx wanted the government, which represented the people, to control the labor market by controlling all capital. At the time, this was a popular idea among many workers, who were often treated poorly and faced routine twelve-hour workdays.   Marx’s economic theory clashed with those of existing classical economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo, though his idea of the labor theory of value—products being valued based on the amount of labor it took to produce them—did find wider support. Although Marx’s work is often criticized as flawed today, the labor situation in the 1850s made his ideas more attractive. Marx and Engels also pointed to slavery, which still existed in the United States, as capitalism run amok. They hoped that the defeat of the Confederacy would eventually lead to a socialist revolution in America by Northern factory workers.   1862: Civil War Increases Government Control An 1861 map of railroads in the United States, of which the ones in Union territory were nationalized by President Lincoln on January 31, 1862. Source: Library of Congress   Government seizure of capital began in the United States during the American Civil War (1861-65) due to the rigors of full mobilization. On January 31, 1862, Congress gave US President Abraham Lincoln the authority to nationalize all railroads in Union territory. In April, control of the railroads was given to the US Army, which used them to transport soldiers and equipment to the front lines. This was a major advantage for the Union, which had far more railroads than the Confederacy.   A few weeks after Lincoln took control of the railroads, he also took control of the nation’s new telegraph lines. The new technology allowed military commanders and the president to learn information about enemy troop movements in record time. Again, this advantaged the Union, which had a far more extensive telegraph network than the Confederacy. By placing both railroads and telegraph lines under government control, a step the Confederacy delayed until later in the war, the Union could wage war more efficiently. By May 1865, the Union had defeated all significant Confederate forces and successfully preserved the nation.   Progressive Era: Government Regulations Increase Socialist Party presidential nominee Eugene V. Debs (above, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) won six percent of the popular vote in 1912. Source: The Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia   The wartime nationalization of industries in 1862 may technically have been socialism, but few would link it to Marxism due to the emergency nature of war. The first emergence of peacetime socialism occurred during the Progressive Era (1890s-1920). In 1901, the Socialist Party of the United States was founded and grew rapidly. For the first time, many Americans cared about the plight of the urban poor, including children. The federal government and state governments began passing reforms to deliver some degree of social welfare and limit child labor and workplace hazards.   During the Progressive Era, the government did not nationalize industries, but did drastically increase regulations on businesses. This included trust-busting, or breaking up monopolies that were deemed a threat to free and fair trade. In effect, the Progressive Era limited capitalism without significantly socializing America. However, it laid the foundation for future pro-socialist reforms by creating widespread acceptance of social reforms and limits on corporate practices. Many voters agreed that it was acceptable for the government to place limits on businesses for the public good, especially when it came to health.   New Deal: Social Security Act and Welfare An image of a Social Security card issued to US citizens, with which they can receive government-distributed retirement pension benefits. Source: National Women’s Law Center   While the Progressive Era saw the rise of federal regulations for many industries, social welfare remained the purview of local and state governments up through the 1920s. Although World War I saw another spike in temporary government nationalization of key industries, the Roaring Twenties restored the power of capitalism. The 1929 stock market crash that heralded the arrival of the Great Depression, however, forced permanent changes to America’s government and economy. By 1932, up to a quarter of the labor force was unemployed, and millions of citizens were begging for government relief.   The New Deal, crafted by incoming US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, featured a rapid flurry of economic and social reforms. Although no industries were nationalized, thus not reaching the threshold of true socialism, the federal government did create its first systems of wealth redistribution. The Social Security Act of 1935 created a federal pension system for US citizens, with a payroll tax instituted on most workers to fund it. Upon age 65, after having paid into the system for decades, retirees would be assured of monthly government payments for life. Whether or not Social Security is a socialist program remains debatable, with conservatives arguing that it is not. It remains extremely popular and thus retains strong support across the political spectrum.   World War II: Rationing and Labor Controls Ration books and ration coupons from World War II, which were used to ensure the equitable distribution of consumer goods. Source: The National WWII Museum, New Orleans   After the New Deal, the public was more accepting of government redistribution of wealth (taxing and welfare). When World War II erupted and the United States returned to full mobilization of resources, the country instituted widespread rationing for the first time. The Office of Price Administration (OPA) managed a complex system of rationing beginning in May 1942 with sugar. The government aimed to equitably distribute the remaining consumer goods that were not diverted into the war effort. It was a difficult task, and a black market developed in many areas where people paid extra to get more units of desired goods.   In addition to rationing, the US economy was subject to price controls to limit inflation. To maintain wartime production and prevent labor disputes, the government instituted wage controls on private employers, as well as a slew of regulations to force (relatively) equal pay for women and minorities. These labor controls protected workers and the American public but were disliked by large companies. After the war, the socialist reforms that had largely nationalized America’s labor force for the conflict were quickly abandoned. Labor unions began striking for higher pay in 1946, prompting a wave of conservative legislation to reduce their power.   1960s: War on Poverty and Great Society Reforms US President Lyndon Johnson (left) signing Medicare into law in 1965 with former US President Harry S. Truman (right). Source: Humanities Texas   Although US President Harry S. Truman wanted to maintain the New Deal and World War II labor reforms, conservatives successfully argued that such regulations were akin to those used in the Soviet Union. As the Cold War emerged and a new Red Scare swept across the country, moderates wanted to avoid anything that could be accused of socialism. By 1964, however, the Red Scare had abated, and it was no longer political kryptonite to propose anti-poverty reforms. In a series of reforms reminiscent of the New Deal, US President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a War on Poverty as part of his larger Great Society program.   Politically skilled and publicly popular, Johnson was able to push major anti-poverty and Civil Rights legislation through Congress. On July 30, 1965, Johnson signed the most sweeping pro-socialist legislation since the Social Security Act of 1935. The Medicare and Medicaid Act created two sweeping health insurance programs that would be funded by the federal government. Medicare provided basic health insurance for all Americans, regardless of income, beginning at age 65. Medicaid provided basic health insurance for Americans in poverty. Both were funded through payroll taxes on virtually all US workers, similar to Social Security.   1965: Elementary and Secondary Education Act  An image from the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that introduced federal funding into public K-12 schools across the United States. Source: PDK International   A second major reform in 1965 involved providing increased federal funding for public K-12 schools nationwide. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) dedicated federal funds to close learning gaps among low-income students and help provide all children and teens with equitable public education. Prior to this, there was little redistribution of education funds, meaning low-income school districts had few resources. The ESEA helped level the playing field in terms of education funding, providing opportunities for bright and hardworking but economically disadvantaged youth.   Coming on the heels of the National Defense Education Act (NDEA), which forced states to increase math and science education, the ESEA dramatically increased federal oversight of K-12 public education. Critics felt that this violated states’ rights and was socialist due to the redistribution of wealth from higher-income school districts to lower-income districts. They also opposed the federal government’s ability to withhold ESEA funding (Title funding) from schools that did not meet federal standards. While states retained official control of public education, schools largely complied with federal mandates to continue receiving additional funding.   1990s-Now: Health Care Reforms A chart from 2017 showing the many sources of health insurance coverage for Americans. Source: Center for Excellence in Health Care Journalism   Since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, healthcare costs have risen faster than the rate of inflation. This has prompted periodic calls for health care reform, with Americans displeased with health insurance options available through the free market. In the early 1990s, the administration of incoming US President Bill Clinton explored federal subsidies for small business health insurance plans. In November 1993, a bill was proposed that would require universal coverage, meaning all US citizens would have to sign up for health insurance through either a private or government-controlled plan.   Although Clinton’s proposal failed in Congress, the concept of universal coverage returned in 2009 with the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA, colloquially known as “Obamacare” after US President Barack Obama, initially required all citizens to purchase health insurance coverage or pay an annual tax penalty. This individual mandate, coupled with an employer mandate that businesses with a certain number of employers offer health insurance plans, was often criticized as socialist by conservatives. However, similar to the reforms of the Progressive Era, nothing was nationalized, thereby avoiding true socialism.   2020-21: COVID Pandemic Shutdowns In March 2020, most state governors issued executive orders to many small businesses to temporarily close to limit the spread of the Covid virus. Source: West Virginia Governor’s Office   Government control of the labor market increased dramatically in 2020 due to a rapid viral pandemic. The Covid pandemic erupted in the United States in March 2020, forcing state governments to react quickly to limit infection. Most states used lockdown and shutdown executive orders to close non-essential businesses and keep people at home. This effectively controlled the labor market, albeit temporarily, and could be considered socialist. However, as the pandemic was considered an emergency situation akin to war, and the lockdowns were brief, few argued that the situation was socialism.   To prevent unrest due to the lockdowns and shutdowns, the administrations of both US presidents used stimulus spending. Millions of Americans received, for the first time, cashable checks (or direct deposits) from the federal government. Simultaneously, the government made most Covid medical treatments free to consumers, including vaccines, once they were introduced. At the time, few Americans complained about the stimulus checks, but many later blamed the generous federal spending on Covid relief for causing high inflation in 2022.   Summary of Socialism in the United States of America A graphic illustrating the scope of federal government spending on various forms of social welfare in 2023. Source: Cato Institute   “Socialism” is often a vague term, with political pundits using it for any perceived government overreach. A more technical definition of socialism requires government control of the factors of production, mostly labor and capital. Although government influence on labor and capital has significantly increased since the beginning of the Progressive Era in the 1890s, direct control of labor and capital has been limited to wartime or national emergencies. Thus, America cannot accurately be labeled a socialist country, even with increased government regulations.   A photograph of pro-socialism protesters marching in the United States as part of the democratic socialist movement. Source: Democratic Socialists of America   In terms of degree, it is undeniable that America is more socialist than it used to be. Redistribution of wealth through programs like equitable education funding, social welfare, and government subsidies to businesses are now common. However, aside from antitrust legislation to break up monopolies, few hard limits on capitalist power exist. If employers pay to meet regulations, they can grow and innovate as much as they want. On a political spectrum, the United States is still quite far from being in the true zone of socialism.

  On the early morning of April 25, 1974, recalled Phil Mailer, a Dubliner working in Lisbon, “the following radio announcement stuns hundreds of thousands of Portuguese into a realization that a new phase in their history has begun: The Portuguese Armed Forces appeal to all the inhabitants of Lisbon to stay at home and remain as calm as possible.”   It was the beginning of the so-called Carnation Revolution, a coup d’état led by sectors of the military that toppled the Estado Novo (New State), Europe’s longest-living authoritarian regime. Despite the army’s initial recommendation, the residents of Lisbon gathered in the streets to cheer the rebels, expressing their hope for freedom after about 40 years of dictatorship.   The Estado Novo & The Carnation Revolution António de Oliveira Salazar, the leader of the Estado Novo. Source: Deutschlandfunk   In 1974, the Portuguese armed forces, dissatisfied with the regime’s handling of the colonial wars in Africa, conspired to put an end to the dictatorship they had helped form some 40 years before. Indeed, on May 28, 1926, a military coup d’état toppled the unstable parliamentary republic born in 1910. After the sudden regime change, General António Óscar de Fragoso Carmona headed the initial provisional government, commonly known as Ditadura Nacional (National Dictatorship). Then, in 1928, faced with the threat of a financial crisis, the army leader appointed António de Oliveira Salazar as Minister of Finance. At the time, Salazar was a professor of Economics and Finance at the University of Coimbra. Four years after his first appointment, he became prime minister.   In the years following his direct involvement in Portugal’s politics, Salazar began a process that would transform Portugal into an authoritarian regime. In 1930, for example, he founded the União Nacional (National Union), an umbrella organization that became the only legal political party in the country. In 1933, a new constitution officially turned the Ditadura Nacional into the Estado Novo, an autocratic corporatist state.   The constitutional charter created two representative bodies. The legislative role of the first one, known as the National Assembly, was limited to activities that did not rely on public spending. Only members of the National Union could join the assembly. On the other hand, the so-called Corporative Chamber was formed by representatives of the country’s official professional groups and workers’ organizations, established after disbanding the previous trade unions.   Propaganda posters of the Estado Novo. Source: Universidade Estadual de Campinas   The 1933 document also introduced changes regarding the offices of the president and the prime minister. Directly elected for a seven-year term, the president was granted a vast array of powers, including the faculty of appointing the prime minister. However, Salazar, who remained the Prime Minister of Portugal until 1968, was the de facto head of the government.   Under Salazar’s rule, the Estado Novo curtailed civil rights and liberties. The regular use of state censorship limited the freedom of speech, silencing the opposition. The Secret Police aided the regime in implementing its directives while imprisoning and killing the political opponents. Salazar, who had planned to become a priest in his youth, strengthened the relationship between the state and the Catholic Church, restoring Catholicism as the official state religion. Deus, Pátria e Família (God, Fatherland, and Family), declared a motto of the Estado Novo.   While the Portuguese regime supported Francisco Franco’s fascist forces during the Spanish Civil War, the government opted for neutrality after the outbreak of World War II. In 1949, Portugal was one of the founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). In the postwar years, Salazar, a staunch supporter of Portugal’s colonial empire, firmly rejected the process of decolonization that began to restore independence to the overseas territorial possessions of the Western powers. The costly colonial wars, however, began to erode the regime’s consensus among the forces stationed in the overseas territories and the Portuguese at home.   The Estado Novo & Colonialism “The Portuguese Empire.” Front page of the catalog of the 1934 colonial exhibition. Source: Museu do Aljube, Lisbon   The myth of Portugal’s colonial empire was a crucial element of the propaganda discourse promoted by the Estado Novo. Focusing on the celebration of the so-called Age of Discoveries, when Portuguese sailors traveled the world to establish commercial routes to the East, Salazar’s regime created a historical narrative and a national identity around the alleged “civilizing crusade” of Portugal. To this end, the Estado Novo claimed to embody the historical imperial vocation at the heart of the Iberian country’s essence. Thus, the colonial rhetoric and the ideology legitimizing the regime became inextricably intertwined.   In 1930, as Minister of the Colonies, Salazar promulgated the Colonial Act. “It is of the organic essence of the Portuguese Nation to perform the historical function of owning and colonizing overseas domains and civilizing the indigenous populations,” claimed Article 2 of the document. The Colonial Act, later incorporated into the 1933 constitution, marked the beginning of a new colonial policy, which sought to centralize control over all territorial possessions, highlighting their dependence on the metropolis.   Marcello Caetano, Salazar’s “successor.” Source: Novo   The crucial role of the colonial discourse within the regime’s ideology and propaganda efforts led Salazar to oppose the process of decolonization. In the 1960s, as national movements erupted in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea, the Estado Novo responded by increasing the military presence in the African territories. By 1974, around 80 percent of the country’s armed forces had been deployed in the colonial wars.   Portugal’s campaign to suppress its colonies’ struggle for independence continued after 1968 when Salazar suffered a stroke that left him unable to carry on with his role as head of the regime. In September of the same year, President Américo Tómas appointed Marcello Caetano as Prime Minister. Salazar would die two years later, on July 27, 1970. Despite pressure from the international community, Caetano was reluctant to dismantle Portugal’s colonial empire.   The Armed Forces Movement Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho, one of the most famous leaders of the MFA. Source: Ephemera – Biblioteca e Arquivo de José Pacheco Pereira   At the beginning of the 1970s, The Estado Novo’s continued refusal to accept the decolonization of its African territories led to widespread discontent and frustration among the armed forces stationed overseas, with many young officers lamenting the economic and human costs of the long and fruitless colonial wars. In particular, the career military personnel resented a decree introduced by Caetano in July 1973, granting privileges to conscripts in the hope of recruiting fresh troops to deploy in the African campaigns.   As consensus for the regime’s policies began to dwindle among junior officers and soldiers, they formed the Movimento das Forças Armadas (Armed Forces Movement), or MFA, an organization seeking to end the exhausting wars and calling for a drastic change of the status quo.   Many young officers who joined the MFA had been influenced by the so-called “NATO generation,” a group of former cadets trained by NATO staff in the US or other member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. During their experience in international military academies, they formed a different understanding of their role and independent opinions about the Western democracies. In the postwar period, recruiting personnel from a more diverse socio-economic background was also a crucial factor leading to the armed forces’ dissatisfaction with the regime.   General António de Spínola inspecting troops in Guinea. Source: Museu da Presidência da República   Initially, the MFA demanded the abolishment of the July 1973 decree and the introduction of a new colonial policy. Then, in the face of Caetano’s unwillingness to implement a series of structural reforms, the organization began to consider planning a military intervention. In March 1974, as the frustration with the regime continued to rise, Major Ernesto Melo Antunes wrote the official political program of the MFA. Commonly referred to as the “3 Ds,” the text called for democratization, decolonization, and development.   Meanwhile, in February 1974, General António de Spínola openly challenged the Estado Novo’s political establishment with his book Portugal e o futuro (Portugal and the Future). Denouncing the military campaigns in Africa as fruitless endeavors, Spínola advocated a negotiated end to the colonial wars. The army leader’s public dissent of the regime’s foreign policy led to his dismissal from his post as Vice-Chief of the Defense Council. At the same time, Spínola’s book fueled the general unhappiness with the existing political order, playing a crucial part in the MFA’s decision to overthrow the Estado Novo. On March 5, 1974, during a meeting in Cascais, a coastal town west of Lisbon, the Armed Forces Movement finally resolved to organize a coup d’état.   April 25, 1975: A Bloodless Coup People gather in the streets to support the MFA on April 25, 1974. Source: Museu Nacional Resistência e Liberdade, Lisbon   In the late evening of April 24, 1974, the Emissores Associados de Lisboa aired Paulo de Carvalho’s “E Depois do Adeus” (After the Farewell), the song representing Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest. Then, shortly after midnight, another song, “Grândola, Vila Morena,” was broadcast by Rádio Renascença. They were the two secret signals the members of the MFA were waiting for to start their coup d’état.   In the early hours of April 25, they poured into Lisbon, quickly taking control of the city’s airport, television stations, radio broadcast offices, and other strategic locations. Marcelo Caetano and other high-ranking regime officials fled to the National Republican Guard headquarters. However, they soon surrendered to General Spínola’s forces. After the coup, Caetano spent the rest of his life in exile in Brazil.   The Carnation Revolution. Source: UC Santa Barbara – The Current   The orderly rebellion planned by the MFA took the Portuguese and the international community by surprise. In Lisbon, the residents poured into the streets, cheering the soldiers. “A crowd is gathering near Rossio (a big Lisbon square),” wrote Phil Mailer in his retrospective account, “troops are coming towards us. … They raise their fingers in a V sign. The crowd cheers like I’ve never heard cheers before.”   As the MFA members marched through the city, people started giving them red carnations, which the soldiers put in the barrels of their weapons. As a result, the April 25, 1974 coup became known as Revolução dos Cravos (Carnation Revolution).   Unlike many similar uprisings, the Carnation Revolution was an almost bloodless revolt. According to most accounts, only four or five civilians were killed when the Secret Police opened fire on a crowd gathered in front of its headquarters. At the end of April 25, as countless civilians joined the MFA in revolting against the authoritarian government throughout the country, it quickly became clear that the Estado Novo, Europe’s longest-lived far-right dictatorship, had fallen.   The Aftermath of the Carnation Revolution The opening session of the Constituent Assembly on June 2, 1975. Source: Parlamento.pt   Though the Carnation Revolution had successfully overthrown the Estado Novo, the transition of Portugal from dictatorship to democracy did not happen overnight. The uncertainty regarding the political future of the Iberic country worried the Western powers, which feared a possible radicalization of the revolt might affect the tense international order of the Cold War era. In their 1974 Annual Review for Portugal, the British remarked that “the corporate state gave way to an unstable free for all.” In the United States, the Nixon administration aimed to prevent Portugal from “turn[ing] red.”   A soldier marching with a red carnation flower in his gun. Source: Euronews   Indeed, Portugal’s new political leadership struggled to overcome the chaotic period following the Carnation Revolution. After the April 25 coup, the MFA announced its plan to hold a national election to form a constituent assembly. In the meantime, General Spínola was appointed president of the provisional government. At the same time, the National Salvation Junta, a group of high-ranking MFA members, took control of the country. The Continental Operations Command, led by Major Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho (the mind behind the military coup), replaced the police forces of the regime.   In the first weeks after the Carnation Revolution, the MFA also began dismantling the Estado Novo’s oppressive apparatus. Political prisoners were released, and censorship was abolished. On the other hand, the MFA restored freedom of speech and fundamental civil rights. The socialist leader Mário Soares and Álvaro Cunhal, the head of the Communist Party, were finally able to return to Portugal. Overseas, the former colonies gained their independence.   People celebrate the anniversary of the Carnation Revolution. Source: The Portugal News   General Spínola opposed the swift decolonization process. After a failed attempt to seize power, he was then forced to resign. In 1975, the Portuguese citizens living in the overseas territories began to return home. Known as retornados (the returned), they complicated an already volatile social and political landscape. Despite the difficult transition period, 92 percent of Portugal’s eligible voters cast their ballots in the elections for the Constituent Assembly.   In 1976, the more radical subgroups of the MFA and the county’s left-wing parties began to gain momentum, implementing a nationwide wave of nationalization in the business, agricultural, and economic sectors. After a series of short-lived governments, the new constitution, introduced in 1976, and its subsequent 1980s amendments ultimately managed to finalize the complex transition to democracy. In 1986, Portugal became a member of the European Community.   Today, April 25 is celebrated in Portugal as Dia da Libertade (Freedom Day).

  King Alfred the Great is one of the best-known English kings, recognized for turning the tide against the Viking army that threatened to conquer all of England. He was an unlikely king, the last of four sons to take the throne, and riddled with bad health throughout his life. Yet King Alfred was very much the right person at the right time, allowing Wessex alone to survive the Viking invasions of Britain, and cementing a legacy that would help to unify England.   England Before the Vikings A map of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in England, from A Literary and Historical Atlas of Europe, by J.G. Bartholomew, 1914. Source: The Internet Archive   Following the withdrawal of the Roman Army and bureaucracy in the 5th century CE, the majority of what we now call England was invaded and ruled by people from modern-day northern Germany and southern Denmark: the Anglo-Saxons.   Like the Vikings, the Anglo-Saxons had originally been pagan. They worshiped a pantheon of gods similar to those in Scandinavia: Woden instead of Odin, Thunor instead of Thor, and Tiw instead of Tyr. However, by the end of the 7th century, the last Anglo-Saxon king, Penda of Mercia, converted to Christianity and the religion became central to Anglo-Saxon identity.   By the 8th century, England was loosely organized into many kingdoms. The dominant kingdoms by the time of the Viking invasions were Wessex, covering the south of England; Mercia in the Midlands; Northumbria between Mercia and Scotland; and East Anglia in the fens of eastern England. These separate kingdoms were constantly shifting between war and alliance with their Welsh and Scottish neighbors and each other, and political disunity left England vulnerable and ripe for the taking.   It was at this point that the Vikings from Scandinavia entered the scene and we know about the chronology of the events that followed from one fantastic source, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. This book was actually several chronicles, kept in religious institutions across England, and updated largely simultaneously. Though it is recognized as being particularly pro-Wessex in its bias, it does give us a good account of the notable events of the Anglo-Saxon Period and we can follow the Chronicle as it guides us through these vital years in England.   The Great Heathen Army A manuscript depiction of Danes landing from ships, from MS M.736 fol. 9v, 12th century. Source: The Morgan Library, New York   The very first Viking raid on England was in 793 CE when a band of raiders attacked the monastery on Lindisfarne—Holy Island—and left with plundered gold and silver, and enslaved monks. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, one of the sole historical records, tells us:   “On the sixth day before the ides of January in the same year, the harrowing inroads of heathen men made lamentable havoc in the church of God in Holy-Island, by rapine and slaughter.” Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, entry for 793, translated by James Ingram   These attacks had been limited to pirate raids across the coasts of Britain and Ireland, until 865 CE when everything changed. In this year, the Chronicle says:   “The same year came a large heathen army into England, and fixed their winter-quarters in East- Anglia, where they were soon horsed [provided with horses by the locals]; and the inhabitants made peace with them.” Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, entry for 865, translated by James Ingram   Never before had the Vikings ventured so far in-land, let alone overwintered in England. This was more than a simple raid: this was an invasion. It is hard to determine just how many people were in this “Great Army” (micel here in Old English) and historians have varied estimates between around 1,000 and several tens of thousands. Nonetheless, this was a coalition of many Scandinavian warbands and it presented the first real drive from the Vikings to conquer and settle the English kingdoms.   In 867, the Viking army slayed the Northumbrian king in York, and in 869, King Edmund of East Anglia was killed, and another kingdom fell. By 874, the Mercian king was exiled and only Wessex remained as the last Anglo-Saxon kingdom in England. Meanwhile, in 876 the Viking conquerors became settlers, and “…became afterwards their harrowers and plowers” (The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle). The Vikings had made their intention to stay clear.   Who Was King Alfred? Photograph of the Alfred Jewel, a head of an aestel (a pointer to aid with reading), emblazoned with the words AELFRED MEC HEHT GEWYRCAN (“Alfred ordered me to be made”), 9th century. Source: The Ashmolean Museum   King Alfred was born in 849 CE and was an unlikely candidate for the throne of Wessex. Alfred had fought in Mercia alongside his brother, King Æthelred of Wessex against the Great Heathen Army in a futile attempt to keep the invaders from advancing any further south. Despite some victories, Mercia fell and Æthelred perished soon after, probably from his injuries.   Æthelred had two sons, but in 886 the throne was passed to his brother, Alfred, as they had agreed. Four sons of King Æthelwulf had each taken the throne: Æthelbald, Æthelberht, Æthelred, and finally Alfred, in a custom which favored capability and ability to rule over pure primogeniture (the throne passing to the first-born son).   Alfred’s foreign policy was directed at defending Wessex militarily from Scandinavian attacks, but his reign was also concentrated on several reforms at home. He established fortified towns, called burghs, which were located roughly 19 miles apart and which could allow armed garrisons to march out and defend against an attack anywhere in the kingdom.   Alfred also focused on domestic affairs and legal reform. He is known for spurring on a renewed sense of learning and Christian education in his kingdom. He was keenly aware of his and his subjects’ place within the wider Christian world, and with the threat of a foreign, pagan conquest there was the potential for King Alfred to save not just Wessex, but England itself. It is, therefore, important to consider Alfred as a skilled administrator as well as a military talent.   Alfred in the Marshes Alfred Plans the Capture of the Danish Fleet, by James William Edmund Doyle, 1864. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Not long into his reign, disaster struck Alfred. Despite blockading Danish ships in Devon and a peace agreement sworn on a holy ring, the Vikings once more began a dramatic offensive in Wessex. At the start of 878 CE, the Heathen Army attacked Chippenham where Alfred was staying.   Let’s return to the Chronicle:   “This year about mid-winter, after twelfth-night, the Danish army stole out to Chippenham, and rode over the land of the West-Saxons; where they settled, and drove many of the people over sea; and of the rest the greatest part they rode down, and subdued to their will; – ALL BUT ALFRED THE KING. He, with a little band, uneasily sought the woods and fastnesses of the moors.” Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, entry for 878, translated by James Ingram   At this point, King Alfred had been routed from his royal seat and his command over his kingdom lay in doubt. Wessex lay vulnerable to Viking raids and potential conquest. Traveling light with his small band of loyal survivors, King Alfred built a fortification at Athelney, in the marshes of Somerset. The king must have been aware of the precarious state of his kingdom and how much he had to lose.   It was here the legend of Alfred and his cakes was born. Allegedly, Alfred was sheltered by a peasant woman who didn’t recognize his status and asked him to watch her cakes while they cooked. Distracted by the war at hand, Alfred let them burn accidently and was promptly berated by the woman. Though an unlikely piece of folklore, this story does help to emphasize how little Alfred’s kingship mattered in the rural countryside without his armies and palace.   The Battle of Eddington  A manuscript depiction of a king leading several speared warriors, from MS. Junius 11, 10th century. Source: The Bodleian Library, Oxford   Learning from the Vikings’ hit-and-run tactics, Alfred began a guerrilla campaign from his base at Athelney and successfully rallied the local fyrd (peasant militia) from Somerset, Wiltshire, and Hampshire. Four months after the disaster at Chippenham, in May, King Alfred rode to a place the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle refers to as “Egbert’s Stone,” presumably a monument to the historical King Egbert of Wessex; “There came out to meet him all the people of Somersetshire, and Wiltshire, and that part of Hampshire which is on this side of the sea; and they rejoiced to see him.”   This was a carefully planned operation and it demonstrated Alfred’s authority and level of respect among the lower nobility who stayed loyal to their king despite his humble position in his marshland fortification. From this point on, King Alfred began to retake Wessex, culminating in the decisive Battle of Eddington. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says:   “[He] fought with all the army, and put them to flight, riding after them as far as the fortress, where he remained a fortnight. Then the army gave him hostages with many oaths, that they would go out of his kingdom. They told him also, that their king would receive baptism.” Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, entry for 878, translated by James Ingram   Routed at Eddington, the Viking army under their leader Guthrum returned to Chippenham where they surrendered after a brief, two-week siege. As recounted by the Chronicle, one of the terms for peace was Guthrum’s baptism. King Alfred believed that the only way to maintain peace was through his Scandinavian neighbor’s conversion to Christianity, and he ensured that Wessex’s territorial integrity was preserved.   Alfred’s Legacy Baptism of King Guthrum, by James William Edmund Doyle, 1864. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The victory at Eddington proved to the residents of England that the warriors from across the sea could be stopped. However, England after the battle proved to be forever changed. With the defeat of the Viking army, modern-day England had been split in half between those under Christian, West-Saxon governance and those under “the Dane Law.”   Wessex now stretched further north than it ever had before, and Alfred found himself king of large swathes of Mercia in addition to his west Saxon lands. Gone were the ancient kingdoms, and King Alfred wasted little time in stylizing himself as king of all the Angles and Saxons, particularly in his biography written by his priest, Asser. Alfred saw an opportunity to actively craft a universal Anglo-Saxon “English” identity. Where previously someone may have been Mercian, West-Saxon, or East-Anglian, now they were Angelcynn, or “English kin.”    Though the Great Heathen Army of Vikings had come some close to spelling the end of not only King Alfred’s reign but every kingdom in England, ironically it was this very invasion that allowed him to stake his claim over all English-speaking peoples. It was not King Alfred who became the first king of all England—that was his grandson, Æthelstan—but Alfred’s strength, determination, and blind luck in the marshes of Athelney had cemented his dynasty’s stake over England for years to come.

Radiohead's Thom Yorke is currently taking his one-man prog band concept to arenas across the Pacific Rim

On March 19, 2021, my father passed away. He was larger than life. Nobody who met him ever forgot him. And since his passing, I’ve thought more deeply about death and the afterlife. One pervasive misconception is that we’ll spend eternity in heaven, gathered around God’s throne with the angels. Of course, this is a present reality—deceased saints are indeed worshiping God in heaven. Scripture is clear on this point (e.g., 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; Rev. 6:9–10). But the church is often ignorant about what will transpire in the future after Christ’s second coming. For the last hundred years or so, evangelicals have expended more energy on what precedes the eternal state—the nature of the tribulation, the millennial kingdom, and so on—than on the eternal state itself. Let’s examine what Scripture says about the new heavens and earth and consider a few points of encouragement. New Cosmos We find the most detailed account of the nature of the eternal state in Revelation 21–22. The challenge, though, is that John reveals his climactic vision using Old Testament symbolism drawn from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, 1 Kings, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. To understand Revelation 21–22, one must understand the Old Testament. John envisions “a new heaven and a new earth” (21:1; see Isa. 65:17; 66:22), but then he immediately sees a “holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven” (Rev. 21:2; see Isa. 52:1; 62:1–2). While these two images may strike us as odd, the progression from cosmos to city is natural. John isn’t describing two different realities but one. Notice the interpretation of these images in Rev. 21:3: “I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man’” (see Lev. 26:11–12; Ezek. 37:27). John equates the “new heaven” and “new earth” with the “new Jerusalem.” But that isn’t all. John later drills down into some specifics of the new cosmos: “Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life . . . also, on either side of the river, the tree of life” (Rev. 22:1–2; see Gen. 2:8–9; 3:22, 24; Ezek. 47:12). This cosmic city contains Edenic features. It’s a city-cosmos-garden! The readers of Revelation would’ve immediately connected the dots, as each image recalls the Old Testament, especially Genesis 1–2. Creation of the Cosmos as God’s Sanctuary The creation account in Genesis 1–2, one of the richest and most influential texts in all of Scripture, reveals that God intended the cosmos to function as his habitation, his sanctuary. Psalm 78:69 explicitly states, “He [the Lord] built his sanctuary like the high heavens, like the earth, which he has founded forever” (see also 1 Chron. 28:2; Isa. 66:1–2). Michael Morales rightly concludes, “The cosmos was understood as a large temple and the temple as a small cosmos.” We mustn’t miss this point: God created the world to function as his sanctuary—for heaven and earth to be one location—but this intention never came to pass. It’s like building a dream house and never moving in; God’s desire to dwell fully with humanity and creation never transpired in the way Genesis anticipated. On account of sin and disobedience, a great gulf separated heaven from earth. Yet God promised he would, at the end of history, bridge this gulf (see Isa. 40:1–5; 65:17; 66:22). God created the world to function as his sanctuary—for heaven and earth to be one location—but this intention never came to pass. Christ and the Beginning of the New Cosmos John’s Gospel devotes considerable attention to Christ’s relationship to the temple and the new creation. For example, according to John 1:14, Jesus “became flesh and dwelt [eskēnōsen] among us.” The verb “dwelt” (skēnoō) should be rendered “to tabernacle.” The wording recalls texts such as Exodus 25:8–9, 33:7, and 40:34–35 that describe the construction of Israel’s “tabernacle” (skēnē). The idea is that God is now dwelling with his creation in the person of Christ. God’s presence in the backroom of Israel’s tabernacle and the later Solomonic temple foreshadowed Christ’s presence among his people. Heaven has come down. Jesus claims in John 1:51 that Nathanael “will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” Invoking the narrative of Jacob’s ladder in Genesis 28:10–19, Jesus claims to be the portal between heaven and earth. Christ has begun to unite heaven and earth. Later in John’s Gospel, Jesus encourages his disciples by reminding them that his “Father’s house” has “many rooms” and that he must “go to prepare a place” for them (14:2). While it’s tempting to interpret Jesus’s words as a general reference to heaven, the language narrowly refers to the ingathering of redeemed humanity into the temple at the end of history (Ex. 15:17; Isa. 2:2; see also 2 Macc. 2:17–18; 1 En. 39:4; 71:16). Steve Bryan persuasively argues that “Jesus’ words . . . are not so much concerned with the removal of his followers from earth to heaven as they are about the dissolution of the divide between heaven and earth. . . . Jesus displaces the earthly dwelling place of God and also goes to the Father to prepare the heavenly dwelling of God to be the dwelling place of his people.” Let’s synthesize John’s material: After Jesus’s death and resurrection, he ventures into the heavenly realm to construct the new cosmic temple; this new cosmic temple began with Jesus’s life—and especially, his resurrection—and extends to all those who believe in him. John’s Gospel underscores the new creation and Jesus’s departure. Whereas Matthew, Mark, and Luke accentuate Jesus’s ascension to the Father’s throne as the Son of Man to rule over creation, John underscores Jesus’s present and future role in creating the cosmic sanctuary. Christ promises to “come again” and “take” his disciples so they “may be” where he is in the eternal state (14:3). Be Encouraged The implications of Scripture’s teaching on this subject are immense. We will not spend eternity floating on clouds. We’ll enjoy something far better: life in the new earth ensconced in God’s glory. We’ll finally see him face to face. Rather than saying we’ll “spend eternity in heaven,” it’s far more biblical to state we’ll “spend eternity on the new earth.” When I talk about death and the afterlife with my kids, I find they understand the concrete expression “new earth,” as the phrase communicates continuity and discontinuity. It’s far more biblical to state we will ‘spend eternity on the new earth.’ My dad will remain in heaven, his soul only, until the resurrection. Then, when Christ comes a second time, at the end of history, he’ll give my dad a new body and my dad will be everything God created him to be. He and I, together with the saints, will inherit the new earth. My dad and I will once again enjoy each other’s company, play sports, laugh, and build all sorts of things. I miss him, of course, but I can’t wait to join him.

As I recounted my failures for the umpteenth time, my Christian counselor leaned toward me and gently asked, “Don’t you think it’s time to forgive yourself?” I’d been a Christian for decades by then, but in this one area, I was like Arthur Dimmesdale from The Scarlet Letter, constantly revisiting my sin with the scourge of memory. Crushed by the weight of spiritual perfectionism, I wanted to be enough on my own, and I failed. I knew what my counselor meant by the question, but in the silence that followed, the Holy Spirit reminded me of David’s words in Psalm 32:5: “I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the LORD,’ and you forgave the iniquity of my sin.’” So I uttered one surprising word in response: “No.” Aware of my counselor’s quizzical gaze, I added, “But I do think it’s time for me to accept God’s forgiveness.” Test Cultural Refrains The more I reflect on our conversation, the more I question the use of reflexive pronouns in spiritual vocabulary. Remember reflexive pronouns from elementary school? They signal that the sentence’s object is the same as its subject. “Forgive yourself.” “Love yourself.” “Give yourself grace.” These are common cultural refrains, but they’re not gospel anthems. While they may derive from the truth that we should recognize our God-given dignity and value as image-bearers, both in how we honor others and how we view ourselves, taken too far, these refrains wrongly encourage us to provide for ourselves things we ultimately need from God. As we test them against the gold standard of Scripture, we find them to be the fool’s gold of a culture infatuated with self. ‘Forgive Yourself’ In Psalm 32:1, David declares that blessing belongs to those whose “sin is covered.” We’re blessed when Christ’s blood covers our sins, but woe to us when we try to cover them on our own! When God covers our sin, it’s atonement; when we cover our sin, it’s deceit that leads to despair (vv. 2–4). Even the Pharisees knew that God alone forgives sin (Luke 5:21). When we attempt to make forgiveness reflexive, we deny our dependence on Christ. We unwittingly believe the lie that we can atone for the sins we committed. Worse yet, we seek to enthrone ourselves in God’s place. The gospel teaches that we receive forgiveness by believing in Christ’s finished work (Acts 10:43). Either we receive forgiveness from God or we stand condemned. Either we receive forgiveness from God or we stand condemned. ‘Love Yourself’ Scripture teaches us in no uncertain terms that self-love is a sign of the times (2 Tim. 3:2). And yet, calls for self-love abound even within Christian spaces. God is love. To know him is to be enveloped by the Trinity’s deep and personal delight. When we pursue reflexive self-love, we rob ourselves of relationship with Love himself. Like forgiveness, love is a gift from God that we receive. Romans 5:5 says that “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.” The point isn’t that we’d love ourselves; the point is that we’d love one another (John 15:12). As the Father has loved the Son, as the Son has loved us, and as the Spirit has filled us with the capacity to yield the fruit of this love, so we’re to love one another (v. 9; Gal. 5:22). ‘Give Yourself Grace’ What about the common quip that we all need to give ourselves a little more grace? When we hold this seemingly innocuous idea up to the piercing light of Scripture, we find it an impossible proposition. Sinful human beings have access to grace through Christ alone (Rom. 5:2). We can no more give ourselves grace than we can give ourselves CPR. We’re dead on arrival unless God breathes new life into us by his Spirit. If we need more grace, we need more of God. When we receive more grace, we receive it from the indwelling life of his Spirit, not from the “broken cisterns” of our own hearts (Jer. 2:13). The “reflexive gospel” is the mistaken belief that we can unilaterally confer any of God’s benefits and blessings on ourselves. The reflexive gospel isn’t the gospel at all. It’s just another lie born out of human hearts curved inward—Augustine and Luther’s notion of homo incurvatus in se—a modern-day rendition of an age-old problem. We can no more give ourselves grace than we can give ourselves CPR. These refrains are the siren song of a serpent who “masquerades as an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14, NIV). Listen again, and see if you hear the hiss of his deception: “Forgive yourself. Love yourself. Give yourself grace. You do it. Did God really say you need him for that?” Reflective, Not Reflexive The true gospel teaches us that God became human to do what no human being could do for herself. The true gospel teaches us that “his divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness,” and we receive this sacred endowment “through the knowledge of him” alone (2 Pet. 1:3, emphasis added). True Christianity is meant to be reflective, not reflexive. With “unveiled face[s]”—uncovered faces, you might say—we stare into the depths of God’s glory, and he transforms us into his image “from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor. 3:18). Only when we bare our sin before him, when we ditch the mirrors and the selfie sticks and we stare instead into the face of Glory himself, will his reflection begin to change us from the inside out. Over time, as he transforms us, we begin to bear the fruit of his Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23). We begin to reflect his glory to the world around us. As reflections of him, mindful of the benefits we’ve received, we forgive one another, we love one another, and we point one another to the grace that “we have all received” in Christ (John 1:16). And, lest we forget, “it is no longer [we] who live, but Christ who lives in [us]” (Gal. 2:20).

CNN hosted Vice President Kamala Harris on what had been originally proposed as a debate that was rejected by former President Donald Trump. With the floor to herself, would Harris sink or swim? Would host Anderson Cooper try to tip the scale? And would CNN allow some Democrat ringers to slip through the cracks? We watched so you wouldn’t have to. The town hall began with Cooper asking Harris what she would say to Trump voters who aren’t swayed by her messaging. Harris proceeded to double down on it. AC: What do you say to Trump voters who aren't buying the "unfit and unhinged" narrative? VP Harris: I disagree, let me repeat the narrative pic.twitter.com/g27tnq9zMH — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 Harris proceeds to say that Trump is a fascist, and repeats the “suckers and losers” hoax. AC: Do you think Donald Trump is a fascist? HARRIS: Yes, I do. Kamala repeats the "suckers and losers" hoax pic.twitter.com/0Ma9cBZuuD — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 The first question comes via a registered Republican concerned about the direction of the party, and January 6th. This question is met with boilerplate word salad. First question: registered Republican concerned about J6, etc Answer: boilerplate word salad pic.twitter.com/g0MKl9pqya — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 A registered libertarian inquires about high prices: gets to hear about price controls for food and rent. Harris calls herself a “devout public servant.” The registered libertarian asks a question that elicits Harris's price controls proposals for food and rent. Calls herself a "devout public servant". pic.twitter.com/K4Tlh2S8c7 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 Anderson Cooper’s first followup is on price controls. Harris proceeds to insult the Attorneys General of three states, one of which is the gubernatorial candidate in a state she needs to win.  AC follows up on price controls proposal. Harris suggests that GA, NC, FL have unattended price gouging problem. Throws tariffs into the answer. pic.twitter.com/Zu1Y1l0ebZ — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 The next question comes from an allegedly undecided Democrat political science professor, asking Harris to name her top legislative priority. She meandered before getting to amnesty and abortion. "We've got to get past the era of partisan politics slowing down progress" is Obama-era boilerplate. THAT's the era we need moving on from. Cites abortion and immigration as top priorities. I seriously doubt there is such a thing as an undecided registered Dem polisci professor pic.twitter.com/7mBhMafXzy — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 Cooper drills down, getting Harris to talk about killing the Senate filibuster for abortion on demand. Harris takes AC's bait, volunteers to end the filibuster to "codify Roe". Harris shows viewers the skull of the conquered Liz Cheney. NOTHING animates Harris as much as the "freedom" to rip a child from the womb in the 40th week. pic.twitter.com/YX40BdyLua — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 Harris throws Biden overboard on the economy. With love and reverence.  Harris is asked to differentiate herself from Biden on the economy, and very gingerly throws Biden overboard. Offers Medicare expansion in addition to price controls. AC asks, why wasn't that done in the last 4 years? pic.twitter.com/gsSTvgMbbl — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 Harris is asked about the migrant crisis and immediately doiubles down on amnesty for 30M illegal aliens. Harris may have reasonably determined, given both this question and its framing, that GOP lacrosse kid is a ringer and not at all undecided. Despite blowing the question off and reverting to her immigration word salad, she doubles down on amnesty for 30M illegal aliens. pic.twitter.com/ipJhoCr0QD — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 To his credit, Cooper asks what took Biden so long on the border actions. Harris is nonresponsive. AC asks why the Biden admin waited until just before the June debate to do border executive actions. Harris is nonresponsive, takes credit for reduced crossings. *** The demand for more asylum judges is a tell for wanting a fast track to citizenship for illegal migrants. pic.twitter.com/AuLFFfXdC4 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 Cooper drills down on the Senate border bill and her apparent flip-flop on the wall AC drills down on the failed Senate bill which funded the wall, calls Harris out for calling it "stupid". Harris deflects to Trump, triples down on both Senate bill AND "comprehensive" bill. Why is there an ideological perspective, asks the ideologue pic.twitter.com/UxavSS0FhM — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 Harris gets a question on Gaza, which is met with non-responsiveness. Harris gets someone who is undecided contingent on Israel-Gaza: Delicately tiptoes around the question by calling for a ceasefire, two-state solution. pic.twitter.com/MgBI42y2hf — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 Harris blows a chance to address “uncommitted over Gaza Offered a chance to address the Uncommitted over Gaza, Harris says how about abortion, price controls and Democracy? pic.twitter.com/3Ub9NXhEdV — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 Here Harris spread the lie, unchecked by Cooper that law enforcement officers were killed  Harris has falsely said, on multiple occasions, that some law enforcement officers were killed on January 6th. pic.twitter.com/uN9BR8pDML — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 In addition to calling herself a “dedicated public servant, Harris compares herself to a modern day Esther. If Kamala Harris really sees herself as a modern-day Esther, she ought to reexamine her continued enabling of Iran and its proxies during such a time as this. pic.twitter.com/SYHVQa23YZ — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 Here, Harris got misdirected. She was lining up for a question on abortion and January 6th but instead ended being asked about her weakness. A reasonable person can infer that Harris believes indecisiveness is her biggest weakness. Harris was lining up for an abortion/J6 Liz Cheney combo but gets sucker punched with a self-examination question. Cites as a weakness...building a good team. Based on this answer, the real answer is indecisiveness. pic.twitter.com/IEsLhH9hd8 — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 Cooper’s follow up was met with more word salad. AC follow to the indecisiveness question: is there any mistake that Harris regrets as VP? Harris offers a preparation non-answer that, again, points to indecisiveness. pic.twitter.com/MU8tQQA4qA — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 To a very detailed question on taxation, Harris offers: a tax hike. Harris offers some word salad to a very specific taxation question, but proffers a tax hike. pic.twitter.com/X58vFBAPCi — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 A voter’s question about antisemitism veers into attacks against Trump. Harris offered a policy-driven response to the Dem realtor's concerns over violent campus antisemitism, before going full Leeeeeeeeroy Jenkins and citing the Atlantic piece. Dodges AC's contrast question, throws out Covid tests for Putin and J6. pic.twitter.com/dbRFd4NmrZ — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 Brutal question on flip-fops and authenticity. Harris tried to spin away from her Trump response. Harris offered a policy-driven response to the Dem realtor's concerns over violent campus antisemitism, before going full Leeeeeeeeroy Jenkins and citing the Atlantic piece. Dodges AC's contrast question, throws out Covid tests for Putin and J6. pic.twitter.com/dbRFd4NmrZ — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 Harris got a court packing question. With time winding down, Harris trots out her latest talking point: Harris gets asked a court-packing question. Does not specifically take the good bait but expresses openness. Chastises SCOTUS for upending Roe after 52 years (Plessy stood for 58). With the clock running out, works in her "enemy within" talking point. pic.twitter.com/1T1sivbOlA — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 Harris closes out with joy dreams aspirations Harris gets asked a court-packing question. Does not specifically take the good bait but expresses openness. Chastises SCOTUS for upending Roe after 52 years (Plessy stood for 58). With the clock running out, works in her "enemy within" talking point. pic.twitter.com/1T1sivbOlA — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) October 24, 2024 Harris doubled down on specific policies when pressed. As is often the case, Harris is most passionate about abortion, This town hall was not the exception. Cooper's followups were notable for the non-responses or spin they would elicit from Harris. But, for most part, Harris was allowed to speak freely. There were occasions where Harris merited a fact-check from the crowd. For example, Harris claimed that law enforcement officers died on January 6th, but that is simply not the case. Harris was also given wide berth to repeat hoaxes such as "suckers and losers", among others. Early analyses on CNN indicate that the Regime Media are dissatisfied with Harris's performance. There are 12 days left to Election Day, and diminishing opportunities for the Regime Media to prop Harris up. 

A Late Bronze Age glassmaking furnace and thousands of vibrant, multi-colored beads have been unearthed at the site of Frattesina in northern Italy. The remains of a clay furnace, glassworking tools and glass objects date to 3,000 years ago, making this the earliest known glassmaking site in Europe. The earliest known glass dates to around the 24th century B.C. and is believed to have originated in Syria. The first large-scale production of glass was in Amarna, Egypt, during the reign of 18th Dynasty Pharaoh Akhenaten (1352-1336 B.C.). The composition of this ancient glass was soda- lime-silica glass made with an alkali that was likely plant ash. The plant ash resulted in high levels of potassium and magnesium oxides in the composition of the ancient glass. Chemical analysis of 2nd millennium B.C. glass from Mesopotamia and Mycenaean Greece has the same composition. The Frattesina glass is different. It is low in soda, calcium oxide and magnesium oxides, high in potassium oxide. They must have used a different alkali source. The Frattesina settlement was founded on the southern bank of the river Po about 25 miles from the Adriatic coast in the 12th century B.C. This location made it a major commercial hub of land, river and sea trade routes connecting transalpine Europe with the Mediterranean. A profusion of archaeological materials — imported goods (Alpine copper, Cornish tin, Baltic amber, north African elephant ivory, ostrich eggshells), evidence of large-scale craft production (bronze casting, antler/bone objects, ceramics, glass, products made from the imported raw materials), remains of cultivated plants and domesticated animals — attest to the rich diversity of its economy. From its founding until the early Iron Age (9th century B.C.), Frattesina received raw materials in trade, manufactured them into finished products and exported them over long-distance trade routes to central Europe, the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean. This is unusual for the period, when workshops operated on a smaller scale and were dedicated to producing goods for local consumption. Interestingly, the business of Frattesina appears to have been business. There were houses where people lived, spun thread/yarn, made clothes, cooked, processed and preserved food. There are two cemeteries were in use for centuries, and the town itself was clearly planned, but there are no defensive walls typical of urban centers of its Greek, Etruscan and Italic contemporaries and the population was modest. Other settlements in the area were much larger in population and area even though none of them had so many workshops manufacturing such a variety of products. The remains of Frattesina were discovered in 1967, and the site has been excavated and investigated ever since. Evidence of glass working was first published in 1983 and later excavations discovered more glass. In 2022, an archaeological mission of Rome’s La Sapienza university undertook a new excavation in an area of Frattesina where evidence of glass production had previously been found. [The excavation uncovered] thousands of multicoloured glass beads have been brought to light, together with other glass objects, testifying to an extraordinary production activity destined for the national and international market. Compositional analyses documented that the production technique was different from that used in the eastern Mediterranean, thus demonstrating the ability of the artisans of Frattesina to rework complex technologies in an original way. The excavation has also uncovered a furnace that was most probably used for glass production and therefore, together with other finds (crucibles, glass ingots), testify to the great importance of this craft production. The furnace for glass production is to date the oldest known in Europe. In addition to the excavations, geophysical surveys (a technique that allows information to be obtained on the environment and on objects placed at a distance through a sensor) conducted by Wieke de Neef of the University of Bamberg and remote sensing surveys have clearly defined the extension, shape and internal organisation of the large village: the settlement of Frattesina extended over more than 25 hectares and occupied the right bank of a branch of the Po no longer existing (Po di Adria) with an organisation by blocks originally delimited by orthogonal canals. Within these blocks, hundreds of dwellings and production facilities were arranged in a very regular manner and with an equally regular orientation.