text:
Here's last week's Bielat/Kennedy Ch. 5 debate
by Greg Reibman | Oct 6, 2012 | Newton | 8 comments
Tags: history | Joe Kennedy III | Sean Bielat
From some reason WCVB either did not post last Sunday's debate on its website or I was never able to find it, which was especially frustrating given that it's their only televised debate.
However, the Bielat campaign recently posted it (in two parts) on YouTube.
Mike Striar on October 6, 2012 at 4:15 pm
After hearing Mr. Kennedy's response to the question about the Massachusetts ballot initiative that would legalize marijuana for medical purposes, I've decided to withdraw my support for the candidate and have removed his lawn sign from the front of my home. Of the two candidates, I would prefer Mr. Kennedy win. But given his apparent failure to grasp the importance of that ballot initiative to countless sick and suffering people in his own district, I've changed my mind and decided to leave my ballot blank in this race.
Anil Adyanthaya on October 6, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Thanks for posting, Greg. I had been trying to find it as well. I thought it was odd that the debate basically disappeared the moment it ran. WCVB still only has a two minute snippet on their website and the Kennedy website has no mention of the debate or their candidates's performance (someone please correct me if I missed it).
Sean is a serious man, which is what we need in Washington. I think the debate shows this.
Hoss on October 6, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Mr Striar — Throw out the lawn sign, but consider keeping the baby.
TomSheff on October 6, 2012 at 9:22 pm
I have asked the two candidates to come on Veracity for a one hour debate and Bielat accepted and we are waiting to hear a definitive answer from the Kennedy campaign. Seeing how close the election is, I seriously doubt we'll see an acceptance. We were aiming for October 18th. Oh well.
Funny how one campaign airs it, while the other is doing everything they can to hide it. I wonder if People felt if Bielat lost (I haven't seen it, yet) it would be on the wcvb web site. Ahhhh, politics.
Greg Reibman on October 6, 2012 at 9:25 pm
Tom: What leads you to conclude that Kenedy was "hiding" it?
After viewing the debate, I thought both did a nice job. I thought Sean came off a bit more authoratatively than JKIII.
Barry Cohen on October 9, 2012 at 9:01 pm
I agree with Tom. They're both impressive. Kennedy needs more life experience. His family fame doesn't compensate for his lack of it. The Democrats are anxious not to give up Barney's seat, and think a Kennedy is a shoo-in. The one thing I didn't like about Kennedy was his initial comments about the system being stacked against the average person. That's Elizabeth Warren and Obama, and it's fake. Ask Mark Zuckerberg. But he never came back to it, thankfully.
John Hilliard on October 11, 2012 at 12:40 am
The issue of life experience (or lack thereof) is shared by both candidates. Bielat's references to JPK as a "kid" notwithstanding (they're about five years apart in age and both in their 30s) – neither one has served a day in elected office. And being a member of Congress is hardly the time for learning on the job, especially now.
One could make an argument that SB's corporate experience would be a better fit as a member of Congress than JPK's time as a prosecutor, but there's still a huge difference between being a business manager with hire/fire authority and a eye on a budgetary bottom line in private industry, and an elected office holder whose success is measured in constituent services and bringing home money for local projects. Meanwhile, JPK has a famous name, but he needs a more compelling reason to win than being a reliable party-line Democratic vote.
Plus, and this is admittedly an assumption on my part, I doubt either candidate is really prepared for the unrelenting drive to raise money that is a part of the daily life of every member of Congress. SB has got about $65k left at this point (though the FEC data is really old now) and hasn't seen much national GOP $$$ support this time around. But it might be worse for JPK, esp. with his millions raised — being a Kennedy means he has to be able to raise obscene amounts of money for himself and the Democratic Party — and that demand would probably only grow if he won the job.


The option to change the user interface (UI) of Soda PDF is currently under development.
Subscribe to our mailing lists to be made aware of any updates made to Soda PDF. You can subscribe to the mailing lists in the footer (bottom of the page) of this page!. Enter your email address into the field located in the right side of the footer.
In order to make sure you are made aware of any updates in the application open the Help Module. Choose Options.
Make sure Automatic Updates is set to Enable.


text:
US-Iran Relations No Longer Have Use for Sanctions
Image Credit: Gulf News
All is not well on the eastern front, as Iranian-American relations have hit their lowest point in decades.
The current round of escalation began on June 20th, when it was reported that Iran shot down an American drone over the Straits of Hormuz, in international waters. In response, the United States prepared to retaliate against three Iranian targets. However, the attack was called off at the last minute by President Donald Trump, allegedly because of the estimated death toll. Instead, the US response included cyber attacks and new sanctions on Iranian leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, preventing them from using international fiscal institutions. While the cyber attacks have been described as a "game changer," the sanctions are frankly an ineffective stick in the US policy deck of cards.
It would be an understatement to describe the new sanctions as "unsurprising," as every US president since Jimmy Carter (barring George H.W. Bush) has imposed sanctions on Iran in response to its unacceptable behavior. In recent years, sanctions have been imposed with the intent of creating an economic chokehold that would force Iran to halt its nuclear program.
However, it appears this tactic is ineffective, as countries such as China continue to buy Iranian oil in violation of the sanctions. Iranian citizens mocked them, one of them declaring, "The only people left to sanction are me, my dad and our neighbor's kid." Furthermore, just a week after the newest sanctions were imposed, Iran announced it had exceeded the enriched uranium limit previously imposed by the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran Deal.
Whereas in the past the United States may have responded to events such as the Russian invasion of Crimea, or the use of chemical weapons in Syria with military force, the generational trauma of Iraq and Afghanistan have made the Obama and Trump administrations reluctant to use force, for fear of entering into another seemingly endless, unpopular war. As a result, unfriendly ambitious states such as China take advantage of the United States' retreat from its role as the world's policeman to further territorial ambitions without fear of violent escalation with the world's most powerful army.
A decade of avoiding confrontation with rising powers, even in circumstances in which the use of force could have been legitimate, has undermined US deterrence credibility. Iran is now emboldened to upend the status quo, violating international law by shooting down the drone over what were technically international waters; enriching uranium despite anti-proliferation norms; and, increasingly worrisome, growing Iranian military presence in strategic areas in its regional neighborhood.
The sanctions policy has become reflexive and ineffective, as only part of the world abides by them; releasing new ones is widely viewed as symbolic, and has no real deterrence value. If the United States and its allies wish to maintain an international order based on democratic values, sovereignty, and diplomacy, they must give up the façade of national and personal sanctions. Instead, the threat of retaliatory cyberattacks, like the one carried out in response to the drone attack, must become the new US deterrence against states violating international norms.
Alexandra Reguev
Next	A Profile of Brian Isaack Clyde: What We Know About the Dallas Courthouse Shooter »
Previous « "People, not Pawns": Female Extremists Beneath the Sensation
Tags: cyberattacksforeign policygeopoliticsIransanctionsUnited States

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Silver plated "Hello" cuff bracelet. Say Hello in several different languages with this unique silver cuff bracelet. Silver plated metal. Nickel and lead free. Measurements are 2 7/8″ width. 6 3/8″ in diameter.
Say Hello in several different languages with this unique silver cuff bracelet. Silver plated metal. Nickel and lead free.Say Hello in several different languages with this unique silver cuff bracelet. Silver plated metal. Nickel and lead free.


Based in Germany, Marc Cain is one of the world's premium designer women's fashion brands. Innovative thinking matched with the highest quality materials combined with their very own unique style of coordinates that are timelessly on trend. Marc Cain delivers a style and look that is perfect for both day wear and work wear which gives women self-confidence and elegance.


text:
The Dodgers Are Talking to Adam Dunn
While reports out of Chicago are saying that the Cubs are the team Adam Dunn would most like to sign with this winter, there's a new team that seems to have entered the Dunn sweepstakes. With the Cubs atop his list, and the Nationals, Mariners and Orioles also reportedly interested in the home run and walk machine, it seems that the Dodgers are now testing the waters.
According to Jayson Stark over at ESPN, the Dodgers contacted Dunn's agent Greg Genske during the holidays to gauge his interest in playing in Los Angeles. On the surface this move would make a lot of sense for the Dodgers. The team is probably getting tired of waiting for Manny Ramirez to either return to Los Angeles or sign with the Yankees -- the Steinbrenners are printing money as you read this -- and would like to figure out what kind of team they're going to have next season.
Tommy Lasorda 23 hours ago
Tommy Lasorda Memorialized at Dodger Stadium Service
Kelly Loeffler Jan 20
Dream Close to Being Sold, Taking Loeffler Out of WNBA
Considering that the Dodgers finished 14th in the National League in home runs last season, they could definitely use an infusion of power into their lineup, and Dunn would provide exactly that. He's hit 40 home runs in four straight seasons and his production could make up for the loss of Manny while his defense in left field is just as horrible.
Of course, the question here is whether or not the Dodgers are really interested in Dunn, or are they leaking word that they've contacted Dunn's agent in hopes that it will help spark a decision out of Ramirez.
The Dodgers Are Talking to Adam Dunn originally appeared on MLB FanHouse on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:11:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments
Copyright FANHO - FanHouse


text:
Mick Ralphs interview
(Introduction and interview by David Lee)
Though he wouldn't admit it, Mick Ralphs has had a profound impact on rock music, especially in America. Every cover band worth its beer money knows at least a handful of his tunes and you just can't say that about too many songwriters. American Radio has had a twenty-five-year love affair with his music and there are some stations that play his compositions at least once a day, this despite the complete lack of any record company pressure to do so.
He has written classic rock and roll music that has and will endure simply because it is just damned good music! "Can't Get Enough," "Feel Like Makin' Love" and "Ready for Love," are but a few of the classics in the guitarist's scrapbook. Mick Ralphs also has the rare distinction of being one of the few popular artists who has remained relatively anonymous while his art is wildly popular. I mean, when pressed, the average radio listener can come up with Paul Rodgers' name as the singer from BAD COMPANY but very few will proffer the name of the groups guitar player.
Having spent the better part of two decades churning out arena rock hits for both MOTT THE HOOPLE and BAD COMPANY Ralphs found himself with a bit of spare time in 1984. Making the best of that down time Ralphs wrote, performed and produced "TAKE THIS!" which is just now getting a proper release. "TAKE THIS" never gained wide distribution or recognition in its initial release and with one listen it will be easy to see why this collection should get another chance. The record features Ralphs at his fat chording best. This IS rock and roll. It is also a bit jazzy and a whole lot of fun to listen to. As an added bonus the length of the original release has been doubled here to include studio out takes, demos and previously unreleased songs. The liner notes were written by Ralphs himself and as he comments on each of the discs tracks you almost feel as though you are in the studio with him as he is creating.
With releases from MOTT THE HOOPLE, BAD COMPANY and the solo album filling store shelves you might think that the man would want to slow down a bit and drink it all in, but not Mick Ralphs. A reformed BAD COMPANY will hit the road in America later this year and a new studio album will likely follow that up which will necessitate yet another tour and so the cycle continues.
Recently, Mick was good enough to take a half hour to chat on the phone with David Lee about all the goings on and here is a bit of that conversation for you.
DAVID LEE It seems like you are a very busy man as of late with the re-release of this solo record and multiple disc releases from both MOTT THE HOOPLE and BAD COMPANY.
MICK RALPHS That is right, yeah. There is the box set and the BAD COMPANY thing is happening as well.
DL You would think that with all of this going on you might be wanting a bit of down time to rest but it all just seems to keep coming.
MR (Laughing) Naw! I have been off the road for about three years and it is all starting to happen at once again right now, which is quite exciting in a way.
DL Is there any particular project that is a little bit closer to your heart at the moment?
MR Well, the BAD COMPANY thing. We got together just recently and cut four new tracks and we haven't worked together for nearly twenty years! That sounds really good and that is going to be part of an anthology box set type thing that is coming out in March and we are planning on doing some dates in the States to back that up so, that is the main priority at the moment.
DL It wasn't too long ago that a reunion of the original group wouldn't seem to have much of a chance, how did that all change?
MR Well, no there wasn't much of a chance of it happening and it was three years of a bit of Henry Kissinger on my part to get it to work because Paul was very much into doing his own solo project. Simon and I had worked together a lot and Boz was off playing jazz and we hadn't really spoken, all together, for a very long time. What happened was that our ex-manager, who had managed LED ZEPPELIN, had unfortunately died. Peter Grant, though we hadn't worked with him for a number of years there was outstanding business and paperwork that all had to be dealt with so we all had to get together for that and I suppose that instigated it really. We were all sitting around a table together and I thought "We haven't worked together in so long and here we are all sitting down together." It grew from there, I suppose. We talked about it and I suggested that we do something before we all got too old.(laughs)
DL Well I know that a lot of the fans will be very excited to see the four of you back together again when you roll this tour through Detroit.
MR Pine Knob.
DL Exactly!
MR We hope to be back there. How is the weather there? Is it cold?
DL Actually, it is unseasonably warm.
MR It is here too. It has been really warm and it is weird. Where is Ted Nugent from? Isn't he from Detroit?
DL He is from Detroit and still lives a couple of hours out of town. As a matter of fact he recently made a big show of his retirement party here in Detroit.
MR (Laughing)How many times has he done that?
DL Probably a couple of times!(laughs)
MR Good old Ted, I love him! He is a good showman and if you see him give him my regards. Tell him that we are getting back together with the old guys. He would love that.
DL Strangely enough I have long associated BAD COMPANY and Ted Nugent, probably because there was one tour that you did with the DAMN YANKEES that I saw five or six times.
MR That is right! That was with the different lineup wasn't it? That wasn't with Paul.
DL No.
MR That was with "The Dork."
DL "The Dork?"
MR Yeah, "The Dork," Brian Howe.
DL Do I sense a bit of tension there?(laughs)
MR Well, no I just despise him!(laughs)
DL Well!
MR He is going out now and purporting to be BAD COMPANY on his own bat. So, we have been taking court orders and all kinds of stuff to put it away but he just ignores it all. I think that when we go out next year he will just have to disappear. He is doing these little rinkydink shows and saying that it is BAD COMPANY and he is not entitled to do that but he is doing it.
DL His career is in that state now is it?
MR Yeah, you are right.
DL Well, I suppose we should talk a bit about the solo record that Angel Air has put out?
MR Yeah. That is a thing that I did in 1981 or 1982, 1982 I think that it was. It was done when at the time when Paul had not long left the original lineup of BAD COMPANY. He didn't actually leave, he just said he wanted some time off and he never came back!(laughs) So, we all had different things. I had all these songs and I wanted something to do so I ended up doing that though, I don't actually believe in solo albums as such. I mean, I thought that I had nothing better to do so I will do a record. I wrote nearly all of the songs and I got all of the musicians, produced it and arranged it and blah, blah, blah. It was a good project. I did all of the artwork and the whole thing so it was a good thing to do. When it came out it never did anything because, I think, that at the time it never got released when it was done and I had a band together and we did about four dates, I think, and it was obvious that it was going nowhere. Then, my friend Dave Gilmore from PINK FLOYD said "You are wasting your time. Come on the road with me." And so I went on the road with him for a year. Luckily for me, do you know Pete?
DL Yes.
MR Yeah, he was sweet and he phoned me up because of the MOTT thing and said "Why don't I put out your solo album?" and I said "Great." What I have done is that I have redone, done more sleave notes for it, changed some of the pictures and given Pete some other stuff that was unreleased and he has added that onto the record to make it a bit more interesting.
DL It pretty much doubles the record's length.
MR Yeah! There is a version of one of my songs with Simon (Kirke) singing on it that I heard the other day. It's kind of old now for me but it is nice that it has come out again. It has a good picture on the front!(laughs)
DL Yeah, I love that picture. Classic rock and roll.
MR Yeah, that was taken in the BAD COMPANY days. You can see Paul Rodgers in the background there.
DL You have a bunch of great photos in the middle of the booklet as well. I read somewhere that you are a bit of a Leslie West fan and there in the middle is a classic picture of you and Leslie West.
MR There is indeed. That was taken in New York. I haven't seen him for years but I have heard that he has lost a lot of weight.
DL Yeah, he has.
MR He needed to. He is a great guitar player and a nice guy too. He is the guy, when I first came to America with MOTT in 1970, he was the first guy that I saw play a guitar called "The Les Paul Jr." And he had such a great sound and I just loved his sound. It was just great to hear him play and then I struck up a friendship with him. We play kind of similarly in some ways, you know, nice big fat chords.
DL Yeah, really meaty kind of music.
MR Yeah!
DL You also sang on this record.
MR Yeah, I did unfortunately.
DL I have never heard you sing, I don't think.
MR It's not that great, I don't think but it is O.K. In the sleave notes I put "It is a shame that I can't sing." but I do my best.
DL Was that a conscious decision, I mean, for you to sing on this record?
MR Well, yeah. I mean, when I write the songs and when I do demos I sing them at home in my pathetic way but, you know, If you write a song and you have got the melody it is nice to get it all down together. I did it and I thought "Well, it isn't that bad." and I got some good musicians, some back up people and when I went on and did some dates I was doing the singing and it was alright. I quite like singing actually, I just wish that I had a better voice.(laughs)
DL So, this material has only ever been performed live three or four times then?
MR Yeah, I hired a band to do four gigs and the band wasn't the same as on the record. On the record I used Simon Kirke on the drums and Mickey Feat on bass. Mickey Feat ended up being in the band with me and I had a guy called Bucket, who ended up being the second guitar player in the version of BAD COMPANY that you saw with DAMN YANKEES, he is in the picture in the back there. The drummer was called Chris Slade and he ended up with AC/DC. In fact, the bass player and the drummer went with me on Dave Gilmore's solo tour. The keyboard player, I don't know what happened to him, Linsey Bridgewater, I think his name was. It was a good fun thing but a long time ago.
DL This is something for the long term fan?
MR I think so. I think Pete put it out because of the MOTT interest and it was a spinoff of that really. There was other guys who were in MOTT and have done solo projects and he has put them out but also in America because of the BAD COMPANY association, I suppose that there would be fans that would be interested in that.
DL The liner notes say that you have written fifty or sixty new songs and it would seem that you are in the same position now as you were when this record originally came out?
MR Yeah. It is exactly the same thing. I came off the road three years ago and I have just kept working and writing and I have stockpiled about fifty songs, yeah. A couple of them we have used for the BAD COMPANY material, on the box set and obviously if we do a new record then I will use some more for that but what I would dearly love is to get a publishing deal. I mean, I like to write more than anything else although I like performing and playing guitar I would like my main function to be writing. I would like to be able to just do that for a living if I could. If I get a good publishing deal maybe I could do just that and then I could go out and gig whenever I felt like it.(laughs) Right now I have to go to work with BAD COMPANY to make some money.
DL Well, there is certainly money to be had there!
MR It is amazing the interest is still there, isn't it? It is great to be doing it with the old original band as well.
DL I like the other versions of the band, especially the "HOLY WATER" era.
MR You liked that? Yeah, that was a good period.
DL I like that period because it was able to sound very different from the early stuff but was still identifiable as BAD COMPANY.
MR It was a more modern sound but it still had to have the stamp.
DL Still, given the choice of whom to see play live I would have to say it would be the original band.
MR Yeah, the stuff that we just did sounds like the old stuff but updated. It sounds great and has the stamp of BAD COMPANY all over it, very definitive.
DL You intimated that there may be another record after the boxed set?
MR Yeah. That is the hope but it all depends on how this all goes. We are going to do some dates in America and if all goes well then, I think, we would probably do another record.
DL Is Atlantic still involved?
MR Well it is Elektra but it is still all part of the Atlantic group.
DL I had read that there had been some discussion about bringing back MOTT THE HOOPLE. What is the status of that?
MR I spoke with Ian recently in London when we did the launch of the book and the box set and we both agreed that it would be best to leave it as it was because it was such a long time ago. I mean, the BAD COMPANY thing is an ongoing thing and MOTT THE HOOPLE was a long time ago and the way that it was, was the best that it was. It is not the sort of thing that you can resurrect because it was a, sort of, a young wild band and I don't think that we would play the same way anymore really. I have a lot of respect for Ian and we both understand that he is doing his thing and I am doing my thing and he was very nice when I saw him in England.
DL The last thing that I wanted to ask you about was, the fact that you have had such an extreme influence on guitar players for two or even three generations now . . .
MR That is nice to know.
DL Is that something that you are aware of?
MR I am not aware of it really but it is a very nice compliment, thank you.
DL Not at all. Your songs play endlessly here in the States is that something that doesn't happen in Europe?
MR No, I think, that we tend to be more well known over there and you tend to have more specific, like classic rock stations over there. BAD COMPANY is well liked on the radio over there, which is great and probably much more so than over here. In England, the music scene is much more fashionable and it changes much more quickly than it does in America. The fans over here tend to be young kids and they are very fickle and tend to change their favorite bands every week whereas in America everybody buys records and if you get a bunch of people who like you, they stay with you. That is why they took to us in America. People come to see us all the time and they have grown up with us. America has always had music coming over the radio and in England it is not as everywhere as it is in America and I like it everywhere. In England it is like "Oh well, you are young and you most listen to pop music." But in America everybody listens to music, it is great!
DL And it allows you to put out box sets!(laughs)
MR It certainly does!
Copyright © 1999 David Lee.
IAN SCOTT ENTERTAINMENT
9773 SANDYPOINTE
FAIR HAVEN, MI 48023 USA


In the last chapter, Daniel was in earnest after it was revealed to him that the Messiah's coming was much further off than he had first anticipated. "The commandment to restore and build Jerusalem" which would begin the 2300 days was found to be a lengthy 2300 year period. Daniel realized the "warfare" of the church "was long" and pleaded to know what would befall the church, Daniel's people, and also when the kingdom would be restored at last. Gabriel comes in great glory, when Daniel had set his "heart to understand" (Dan. 10:12); Gabriel declared, "Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days." Therefore with this context, we find ourselves in chapter 11, where Gabriel will unite all of the previous themes of the book of Daniel into one glorious prophetic end. Therefore, understand that Gabriel is the one speaking to Daniel, giving the explanation through chapter 11.
Daniel 11:1- Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.
Darius was the uncle of Cyrus the great, and is known by the historian Xenophon as Cyaxares II. The father of Darius, Astyages, was king of Media, and the throne would eventually fall to Darius. However, a dream came to Astyages twice, foretelling how his daughter, Mandane, would have a son who would overthrow him, and cause the Median reign to have an end. The Median princess, Mandane, was ordered by Astyages to reside in solitary confinement so that she could not have children or be wed. But the servant of Astyages, Harpages, upon orders to confine her sent her away instead, where she ended up becoming the wife of the king of Persia, Cambyses I. Mandane, now queen of Persia, gave birth to Cyrus the great, who was called by name in the prophet Isaiah, anointed by God to overthrow the kingdom of Babylon.
It was made known that Harpages had not done according to the king's command. In anger, Astyages held a banquet for Harpages, serving him his son's lifeless head upon a platter. Harpages, angered by this, went to Cyrus, the king of Persia, and opened the way for him to overthrow Astyages; but gave honor to his successor and uncle, Darius, to be the king of the Medes. Cyrus gave Darius the honors of the kingdom of Medo-Persia to him, being sovereign under his uncle; and Darius, having no male successor to the throne, gave Cyrus his daughter who retained the honor of the kingdom of the Medes, while being queen of Persia. It is understood that it was around two years later that Darius died, leaving Cyrus as the sole king of the Medo-Persian confederacy. It was Gabriel who established and confirmed Darius. Therefore, it was the angel Gabriel who opened the way for Cyrus and strengthened him to overthrow the kingdom of Babylon. All of the significant and providential openings, wisdom, and prophetic declaration of judgment was from the angel Gabriel by command of Messiah the prince. Moreover, the fall of Babylon, also prophesied by Isaiah, likened the fall of the kingdom of Babylon to the fall of Lucifer. At every step in the Medo-Persian kingdom's cooperation with the purposes of God to fulfill it's role in Bible prophecy was resisted. Even to this day, the devil has seen fit to obscure the records of history, confusing names, and bringing in false histories and interpretations of the ancient history to make this record of the book of Daniel 11 to appear false. Thankfully, our God has left enough traces of history on record that none need err.
Daniel 11:2- And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.
Cyrus was to stand up in Persia as the sole-king of the Medo-Persian confederacy once Darius died. His son, Cambyses II, took to the throne and undertook the conquest of Egypt, one of the few independent remaining states; this war was known as the Battle of Pelusium. In this battle, he carried many of the Egyptian idols, their treasures of gold and silver, and other works of art and carried them back into Babylon, the fortress which the Persian kings tended to occupy; but one claiming to be his younger brother seized the throne while Cambyses was in conquest, and would not yield the throne; Cambyses died that year, but Smeris, the usurper, after he vehemently resisted the Jews and forced the building of the temple to cease was slain by Darius the great. Darius the Great, also known as Darius I, was the third rightful king of Persia to come to the throne; as Cyrus was influenced by the angel Gabriel to issue a decree in building the temple, Darius was influenced, and commanded likewise, the continuation of the building (Ezra 6:1-12). Artexerxes I was far richer than them all, and "shewed the riches of his glorious kingdom and the honour of his excellent majesty many days, even a hundred and eighty days" (Esther 1:3). Darius had made the attempt to fasten the Greeks under the Persian dominion, and put down any possibility of revolt, but he died. Artexerxes, Darius' son, led the Persian war against Greece with one of the largest ancient armies ever assembled, called the Battle of Salamis, where the Persians lost; the Greeks were stirred up to war, and went on the offensive, defeating the Persian army in the Battle of Plataea. This trend continued, and the fourth king of Persia used his riches to hire the enemies within the Grecian territory to instigate revolt. This led to a series of battles, mostly in favor of the Greeks; however, one of the guards of Philip II, king of Grecia, assasinated him from the inside. Artexerxes I was also the one who was stirred to issue the final decree to restore and build Jerusalem. In his seventh year, 457 BC, the decree was issued (Ezra 6:14, 7:7-25).
From this point on, the rest of the kings of Persia are not mentioned, nor the lengthy battle between the Greeks. The only ones mentioned were according to Daniel's inquiry of when the decree of Daniel 9:25 would go forward to commence the vision of Daniel 8. Therefore this prophecy is bringing to view the scenes of Daniel 8, with added description of what shall be at unfold in "the time of the end" (Dan. 8:17).
Daniel 11:3- And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.
Daniel 11:4 And when he (Alexander) shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.
Upon Alexander's victorious boasting, he came to believe he was the son of the gods. In drunken festivity at this announcement, Alexander drank himself to death, having no legitimate successor. Not according to Alexander's children was the kingdom of Grecia given, but it was divided into a confederated four of Alexander's generals Cassander, Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and Seleceus. This is known as the "partition of Babylon".
Eventually, the four continued to struggle for the dominion of Alexander's kingdom, until there were only two kingdoms of prominence remaining left. Ptolemy, who was in control of the southern area of Egypt. Later, this becomes the kingdom in Daniel 11 that we know as the King of the South. The other general is Seleucus; his is the kingdom of the north, controlling Syria. The heart of Syria was Babylon. So the rule is established in the history of the struggle between Alexander's generals as they go throughout time; the King of the North is the power that controls Babylon and the King of the South is the Power that controls Egypt.
Daniel 11:5- And the king of the south shall be strong (Ptolemy), and one of his (Alexander's) princes; and he (Seleucus) shall be strong above him (Ptolemy), and have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion.
The King of the South, Ptolemy, who reigned in Egypt shall be strong and 'one of his princes'. A distinction between Alexander's divided kingdom is being made here between, Ptolemy, the King of the South, and one of 'his' (Alexander's) princes, Seleucus, "shall be strong above him, and have dominion"; his kingdom was larger, stronger, and more powerful than the Ptolemaic kingdom, and it occupied the very grounds of Babylon, where Alexander had died. This principle of the King of the North's strength will prove true not only now, but until the end of the prophecy, whoever occupies the title of "The King of the North" is generally stronger and more influential. The King of the North is the stronger, larger kingdom, but they're struggling with one another.
Daniel 11:6- And in the end of years they (Ptolemy & Antiochus) shall join themselves together; for the king's daughter of the south (Bernice) shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement: but she (Bernice) shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he (Antiochus) stand, nor his arm: but she (Bernice) shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that was begotten of her (her children), and he that strengthened her in these times.
After many wars between Ptolemy Philadelphus (II), king of Egypt (south), and Antiochus Theos (I), king of Syria (north), they agreed to make peace in confederacy with one another. The condition was that Antiochus, king of the north, on should put away his wife Laodice with her sons, and marry Berenice, Ptolemy II's daughter. This was their agreement of peace.
The Scripture says: "She shall not retain the power of his arm". Bernice, the King of the South's daughter did not retain the power with Seleucus, the King of the North. Antiochus I decided that he wasn't happy with Bernice from the South, so he divorced her, and remarried his former wife, Laodice.
Laodice's confidence was shaken in him, so she had him killed fulfilling the word "neither shall he stand, nor his arm". Then "she", that is Bernice, "shall be given up", "and they that brought her", the attendans that came from Egypt with her, supporting her as Queen of the North, and "he that was begotten of her", Bernice's child, were all executed. By this, Laodice proclaimed her son Seleucus II as king.
"Out of a branch of her roots"; that is Bernice's roots. This is speaking of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. A branch out of Ptolemy II is Berenice's brother, Ptolemy III Eugertes, who stood up in his father's estate as King of the South because his father had died. Ptolemy III was enraged at the treachery of the Antiochus Theos, King of the North. He came with an army, and waged war on the king of the North, Laodice's son Seleucus II. This war was called the Third Syrian War.
Daniel 11:8- And shall also carry captives into Egypt their gods, with their princes, and with their precious vessels of silver and of gold; and he (Euergetes III) shall continue more years than the king of the north (Seleucus, son of Laodice).
Daniel 11:9-10 - So the king of the south (Ptolemy III) shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his own land. But his sons (the king of the North's sons Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus) shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one (Antiochus III, the younger brother- an able field general) shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress.
Though Ptolemy III returned to the land with the riches of Egypt, Seleuces II died in prison. His sons that "shall be stirred up" are the sons of the King of the North, Seleucus Ceraunus III and Antiochus III the great. They assemble a "multitude of great forces". 'Sons' is in the plural, but by the end of the verse it is in the singular, "and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress." Though there was two sons, Seleucus III and Antiochus III, one was incompetent (Seleucus Ceraunus). Being the elder and the successor to the throne, he was the one that began the preparation for war. His generals were so frustrated with his abilities that they poisoned him. Seleucus was assassinated in Anatolia by members of his army while on campaign against Attalus I of Pergamon. Then the second son (Antiochus III) takes up the task. and builds a mighty army to return back against the King of the South in response to what they have done; he was the "one" that would "come, and overflow, and pass through".
Daniel 11:11-12 - And the king of the south (Ptolemy Philopater IV) shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north (Antiochus III): and he (the King of the North- Antiochus III) shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his (Ptolemy IV) hand. And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands: but he shall not be strengthened by it.
The verse explains sufficiently for itself what happened. Ptolemy IV Philopater, king of the South, was victorious over Antiochus III, king of the North, and had "taken away the multitude" by conquering many provinces.
Three years later, in 213 BC, despite all of this, Philopater, on another pretext, slew 40,000 Jews. Thus he cast down ten-thousands.
Daniel 11:13-14 - For the king of the north (Antiochus III) shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches. And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south (Ptolemy V Epiphanes): also the robbers (Rome) of thy people (Daniel's people) shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they (those who stand against Ptolemy) shall fall.
The king of the north (Antiochus III the great) comes against Ptolemy V Epiphanes, who is five years of age when he takes the throne as king of the south, because his father Ptolemy IV Philopater had died. The king of the North "shall set forth a multitude greater than the former" because he formed a pact with King Philip V of Macedon in 203BC to come again the Ptolemaic empire (the king of the south).
Specifically in the Battle of Panium, Antiochus III, in 201BC, through the generalship of his son, Antiochus IV, overtook many lands, and this included Judea, which fell under the control of the Seleucid empire, not long after Ptolemy Philpater of Egypt had cast down many Jews. Ptolemy V Epiphanes was five years of age when he took the throne, and being so young, many came against him at this time when the kingdom was paralyzed, and conspiracies abounded.
"And the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision"; this refers to Rome, who had alliances with Pergamum and Rhodes, who were fighting against Philip V of Macedon, who had been united with the king of the north, Antiochus III. On the appeal of Rome's allies for aid, the Romans came and sent an army to Greece and attacked Macedon, defeating Philip V, and forcing him to become an ally with Rome. Antiochus III sought to liberate Macedonia, but failed; the Romans sent an army to the Battle of the Eurymedon and Myonessus. The Seleucid empire of Antiochus III fought against the armies of Rome at Magnesia, but lost and Antiochus was forced to surrender to the Romans, resulting in the Treaty of Apamea. Though many came against the king of the south, because Rome exalted itself, those who came against the king of the south would fall.
Gabriel calls Rome "the robbers of Daniel's people"; this is because is by Rome, from Rome, and through Rome that the greatest losses would be sustained to his descendants, both physical and spiritual as will be seen later on. They exalt themselves against the kings, and this establishes them as a great empire in order to "establish the vision (chazon)". This vision being spoken about is the chazon vision of Daniel 8. It is established in Daniel 9 by the crucifixion of Christ. It is Rome who crucify the Christ of Daniel 9, and destroy the city and the sanctuary, robbing it of it's vessels. But Rome, through the the compromises of the Christian church, rob Daniel's people of far more than the physical sanctuary vessels of gold.
***Please note, this prophecy has to do with God's people. Every time the king of the south and the king of the north fought, Judea, which was the land of God's people until their rejection of the Messiah, was in the center of the conflict. The king of the south was south of Judea, while the king of the north was north of Judea; the principle of these kings is not as much locality, as much as it is who is in the centrality of the conflict. God's people exchanged hands seven times over the Ptolemaic/Seleucid wars, where it would finally have it's end; but then God's people would be placed under different powers, also taking the honors of the title king of the south, and king of the north.
Daniel 11:15 - So the king of the north shall come (Antiochus Ephiphanes), and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his (God's) chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand.
In verse 13-14, the fifth Syrian war took place when Ptolemy V Epiphanes was only a child. His successor was Ptolemy VI Philometor (King of the south), then a minor of six years of age where the sixth war began. The Ptolemies desired to retake the land that the king of the north had secured of Caelo-Syria (the district where Judea of the Jews were in the heart of) in 171-168 BC. Antiochus IV Epiphanes(king of the North) raised a greater army than before, and having defeated his best troops under Scopas, made sure of Caelo-Syria and Palestine, with all their fortified cities.
"Neither his chosen people" refers to God's chosen people, who Antiochus IV Epiphanes had greatly harassed at this time from 168-165BC, leading to the Maccabean revolt in 165 BC, which ended in Judea securing the temple, but seeking protection in the treaty called the league Rome, where it would henceforth by under the jurisdiction and protection of Rome.
Daniel 11:16 - But he (Rome) that cometh against him (Antiochus) shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land (Jerusalem), which by his hand shall be consumed.
The Roman Empire shall "do according to his own will", and come against Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 168BC, when Antiochus sought to make a second attack upon Egypt. It was said of Egypt in verse 15 of the king of the south, "neither shall there be any strength to stand". The young Ptolemy VI had fled from Antiochus when the battle was lost, but when he fled, he ran to the Roman Senate for protection; and the king of the south also, like the king of the north before him, came under the banner of Rome as it established itself empirically.
Rome would even "stand in the glorious land". Although Judea had been in league with Rome for protection, it had peace and independance generally until 63 BC. At this time, Pompey the great, a political and military leader of Rome, was requested to intervene in a controversy which led to war taking place between the Jews via two princes.
One of the parties, Aristobulus, angered Pompey by his careless actions, sent a Roman troop came in to take Jerusalem. Aristobulus' supporters refused the takeover. But Aristobulus' brother, Hyrcanus II, had supporters which opened the city to him, but refused him the right to takeover. The forces of his opponent, Aristobulus, fought against Pompey and Hyrcanus. After two months, the Romans broke through and massacred some 12,000 of the Jews defending the Temple. Judea was required to pay tribute to the Roman administration. It relinquished much land, and was severely crippled in it's movements from this time forward.
His work done in Jerusalem, Pompey returned to Rome expecting to be made the Emperor. However, he had strong competition for the job. One of his competitors was Julius Caesar, who was a great general in his own right. He did in the West what Pompey had done in the East and subdued the peoples in what is today England, France and the Rhineland of Germany.
These two great Roman generals agreed that Rome would be run by a Triumvirate: Julius Caesar, Pompey and a third General, Crassus. However, the Triumvirate lasted only five years, leaving Pompey and Caesar in a rivalry for control.
Daniel 11:17 - He (Julius Caesar) shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones (Jews) with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women (Cleopatra), corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.
Julius Caesar sets himself to take the entire kingdom at this time. Rome is a republic, but sole power is decided as the triumvirate of executive power disintegrates. Therefore Caesar pursues to be the emperor of Rome.
The Senate of Rome backed Pompey, but Caesar relentlessly marched his army across the Rubicon, the famous river that marked the boundary between Italy proper to the south and its provinces to the north. Roman law forbade a Roman army to cross the river. In doing so, Caesar was committing an act of war.
As Caesar's army entered Rome, Pompey and the Roman Senate fled for their lives. Caesar declared himself Emperor and pursued Pompey all the way to Egypt. Once there, he committed a tactical error which found himself besieged in Alexandria by Pompey's army and its allies. Desperately in need of support, he looked for any help that would aid him in his dire situation.
Until that time, Hyrcanus II (who was also high priest in Judea) had been an official ally of Pompey. But the prophecy says that Julius Caesar would set himself to enter into the whole kingdom as emperor with the aid of upright ones. Therefore, Hyracanus II switched sides and declared his allegiance to Caesar. Then were committed over 3,000 Jewish soldiers to an expeditionary force that invaded Egypt and helped raise the siege of Alexandria in 47 BC.
Thus, when the Roman civil war ended in Julius Caesar's complete victory Hyrcanus was in a much more favorable position. Caesar showed the Jews his gratitude for their help. He revoked the harsh decrees and burdensome taxation imposed by Pompey. He also allowed the walls and fortifications of Jerusalem to be rebuilt and restored Jaffa as well as a number of other coastal cities to Jewish rule.
At the same time, a civil war because of the controversy between Cleopatra and her brother is taking place, Julius Caesar enters into an affair with her, and she becomes pregnant with Caesarion, who she hopes will become Julius' successor; thus fulfilling the saying "he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her:…" Yet the prophecy also says "but she shall not stand [reign] on his side, neither be for him." She cannot reign with him according to Roman law (it is unlawful for a Roman politician to marry a foreigner), but she seeks influence from him to gain power and gain the throne which was being seized by Ptolemy at this time. As Julius was not able to amend the Roman Law, he could not name Cleopatra or Caesarion in his will.
Daniel 11:18 - After this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince (Marc Antony) for his (Julius) own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him.
After Cleopatra, Julius Caesar takes the Roman Empire and becomes dictator. Cleopatra and Caesar's relationship was extremely unpopular with the Roman Senate. Calpurnia, Caesar's legitimate wife, was the daughter of a prominent Roman family and while like a good Roman woman she was subservient and demure, Cleopatra was powerful and outspoken. Caesar had many enemies in Rome by this time – chief amongst whom was the orator Cicero. Cicero declared Alexandria "the home of all tricks and deceits" and openly admitted that he despised Cleopatra. He was of the opinion that women were intellectually weak and should always be under the power of their male guardians so he was greatly concerned about Cleopatra's influence over Caesar. Rumours began to circulate that Caesar planned to move the capital of the Empire to Alexandria and senators began plotting how they could reverse Caesar's reforms.
After this, the Roman senate confers special honors upon Julius Caesar, and his conquests seem ready to overtake the entire world.
As pressure increased against Caesar, Mark Antony joined his mentor in Gaul and engaged in a series of battles between Caesar and Pompey. Antony again helped Caesar defeat his enemies and he returned to Rome as Caesar's second in command. Having amassed a great deal of power, in 45 B.C., Caesar was designated dictator for one year. Pompey's sons escaped to Spain; After spending the first months of 47 BC in Egypt, Caesar went to the Middle East, where he annihilated the king of Pontus; his victory was so swift and complete that he mocked Pompey's previous victories over such poor enemies. Caesar gave chase and defeated the last remnants of opposition in the Battle of Munda in March 45 BC.
"A prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him." This was Marc Antony, the second-in-command under Caesar. Antony finds himself immersed in an affair with Cleopatra, although married to Octavia, Caesar Augsutus (Julius' successor) daughter. As a result of this affair, he turns the reproach that was upon Julius Caesar before his assassination upon himself. As a result, Caesar Augustus declared war upon, and this led to the fall of the southern kingdom in Egypt in the battle of Actium in 31 BC, as well as the death of both Marc Antony and Cleopatra.
Daniel 11:19 - Then he (Julius Caesar) shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.
Caesar's actions led many to believe he was positioning himself to become king. A plot to assassinate him emerged, and on March 15, 44 B.C., he was killed in the Roman Senate.
Daniel 11:20 - Then shall stand up in his (Julias Caesar) estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he (Augustus Caesar) shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle.
Daniel 11:21 - And in his (Caesar Augustus) estate shall stand up a vile person (Tiberius Caesar), to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
This speaks of Tiberius Caesar, who succeeded Augustus Caesar. "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene…" (Luke 3:1) Born Tiberius Claudius Nero, a Claudian, Tiberius was the son of Tiberius Claudius Nero and Livia Drusilla. His mother divorced Nero and married Octavian, later known as Caesar Augustus, in 39 BC, making him a step-son of Octavian.
Livia had petitioned Augustus Caesar to proclaim that he would be emperor when Augustus died. Augustus, seeing the manner of Tiberius' refused, and picked several others, but they died before they could take the empire.
Tiberius' mother Livia then pled with Augustus Caesar, and he, in his old age, agreed to let him take control of the kingdom at his death.
He is the one "to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom" Tiberius was not given the honor of the kingdom, yet still received the kingdom in the end. Without warning, in 6 B.C. Tiberius, the visible heir to Augustus, announced his withdrawal from public life and went to live on Rhodes with some personal friends and an astrologer, Thrasyllus.
Augustus was forced to find other successors; his adopted sons, Gaius and Lucius Caesar, were still too young to assume the heavy responsibilities of the Principate, and Augustus now had no immediate successor to assume power and see the boys to maturity.
Augustus's irritation of the matter is revealed by his repeated refusal to allow Tiberius to return to Rome after Tiberius realized the delicacy of his position on Rhodes; despite the pleas of Livia in favor of Tiberius. When Tiberius's powers expired in 1 BC they were not renewed, but it seemed he would be put to death. However, in 2 AD, Lucius Caesar died of an illness at Massilia. Augustus, resistant to the idea of allowing Tiberius to return, finally yielded to the requests of Livia and Gaius Caesar on his behalf. Tiberius returned to Rome and did not partake of any politics until Gaius Caesar unexpectedly died of a wound received during a siege in Armenia. Augustus, devastated, was left without his adoptive sons and, more importantly, without an heir and successor. His careful planning for the succession had come to nothing. In the crisis, he turned once more to Tiberius.
It was said that Tiberius "shall come in peaceably"; so it was by the necessity of Augustus needing an heir. He would "take the kingdom by flatteries" because of the pleadings of Livia, his mother. Tiberius did not desire the kingdom for himself, and wished he did not have to take the position as emperor of the kingdom. He was relunctant, and refused to bear the honors of the kingdom: titles Pater Patriae, Imperator, and Augustus, and he declined the emblem of the Princeps, the Civic Crown and laurels. He was vile in his baser passions which he gave himself over to, while always being of a very dark and gloomy manner.
Daniel 11:22 - And with the arms of a flood shall they (The Jews) be overflown from before him (Tiberius), and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant (Christ).
Christ is here set forth as crucified as "the Prince of the covenant", "Messian the Prince" of Daniel 9, who confirms the covenant with many for one week during Tiberius' reign.
Before this time, "the arms of a flood" of persecution came upon the Jews. In 19 AD, Tiberius ordered the Jews who were of military age to join the Roman army, and everyone else was banished from Rome under the threat of slavery. Tiberius' successors all dying before him, he made no effort to secure a replacement. Finally, in 26 AD, Tiberius retired from Rome to the island of Capri.
Lucius Aelius Sejanus served as the imperial family for nearly 20 years, being made Praetorian Prefect in 15 AD. Tiberius, more and more, gave the limited powers invested in the Praetorians to rule, and chiefly Sejanus, whom Tiberius had statues erected around the city of; that Sejanus might become more and more visible, while Tiberius slow withdrew himself from public life. By 26 AD, Sejanus acted as vice-regent of Tiberius, being left in charge with the duties of communicating with the senate and the city of Rome. There was resistance to Sejanus' authority, and Tiberius' mother Livia held him in check until her death three years later.
After this, he became a series of trials which would put Senators and the wealthy citizens of Rome which opposed his power to death. These were accused of certain offenses by Sejanus', who claimed to Tiberius via correspondance, that they were inciting rebellion, or seeking to take imperial power to themselves. Thus Tiberius would order them to be tried, imprisoned, and issued with the death sentence. In this way, Sejanus was able to influence Caesar according to his will.
Sejanus was also very hostile towards the Jews; thus we see the fallen angel influencing the mind Sejanus against the people of God, and by him, the Caesar.
This climaxed when Sejanus plotted to take the imperial throne for himself in Rome, and Tiberius' realizing the devices forcast by Sejanus, sent a letter to the senate, delivered by Sejanus who had not read the whole of the letter, and it condemned him at the latter sentence. When he was put to death, Tiberius Caesar reversed the anti-Jewish policies of Sejanus in 31 AD. The year Christ, the Prince of the covenant, was to be crucified. Here we see the angel Gabriel at work to influence the mind of Tiberius for good, that the Jews, who had "sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death" (Mark 14:1) might not so readily charge crimes upon him, to be responsible for his death.
The Jews used Caesar's favorable disposition towards them against Pilate; knowing that if he did not send Christ to be put to death, they would send envoys to Caesar against him, having him removed from his station as one who was against the Jews when he was ordered to do otherwise.
By this, they were in league with no power higher than Caesar; by this they unchurched themselves, showing they were not the people of God. By their own will, they showed that they worked under the influence of the fallen angels rather than Michael, and his angel.
I would make a positive comment, the holy spirit has open your understanding and wisdom of his Word! i know that of this knowledge of Daniel that the clock of time is much shorter, the seal broken, the trumpet blown,and the warning given, and the blessings! Can not wait to hear the rest!


text:
Q: Why can't the human eye focus to make blurry photos/video clear? The human eye focuses by flexing the lens, changing its focal length.  When we switch from looking at a near object to a far object, our lens flexes, moving the focal length such that the near object is out of focus and the far object is in focus.  Why, when presented with a blurry photo or video, can we not do the same thing?

A: The eye doesn't "unblur" a blurry image. There are excellent answers here already, but to help build intuition, it might be helpful to understand what software (like Photoshop) does when you tell it to artificially blur an image.
It essentially goes pixel by pixel, and combines (basically via a weighted average) a bunch of neighboring pixels into one. So for each pixel, the color/intensity information gets all scrambled up with that of surrounding pixels, and the image becomes blurry. The larger this "scrambling region" is, the blurrier it gets. This is what people mean when they say "information is lost" - there's no easy way to unscramble this, especially for very blurry images. The ability of the eye to focus is not one that's based on unscrambling; the eye (and our brain) cannot do that.
When it comes to seeing with an eye, or taking a photo with a camera, the mechanism is different, but the end result is more or less the same. You see objects because light bounces off of their entire lit surface in all directions, and some of those rays happen to go in the direction of your eye. When the lens is not focused on an object, the light bouncing off of some region of the surface (and at the edges, even light coming from behind the object) ends up in the same place on the retina/sensor, so as before, the information gets all scrambled up.
Now, when you focus, your eye doesn't take that information and unscramble it. Instead, it changes the curvature of the lens, so that the light rays are refracted at a different angle, eventually forming a clear image from new information carried by incoming "stream" of light rays. You can roughly think of it as frames in a movie: it's not that the eye/brain unscrambled the current frame, but rather that each new frame that comes in happens to be progressively more focused - thanks to the action of the lens.
When you take a blurry photo, the information recorded on it is already scrambled. When you look at it, it doesn't appear blurry because it's out of focus, but because it actually looks like that - that's how it's colored. When you look at a blurry picture, the rays bouncing off of different parts of it (or emitted, if on a screen) don't maintain their original relationships (they don't come from the same angles as before), so no matter what your eye does, it can't make it appear more focused.

A: Here's an experiment you can do. Hold a finger up a foot or so from your eye when in front of a window. If you focus on the finger, distant objects will be out of focus. You can then focus on those objects and they will be in focus. Your eye is adjusting first for the distance to your finger and then for the distance to the distant objects. Now if you look at a blurry photo print say on a wall, all you can do is focus on the print. If you try to focus beyond the print there is no information about the print beyond the wall. Ditto if you try to focus in front of the print. There is no distance from you at which the image is in focus, so you have nothing sharp to focus on. Only a real object can be focused by adjustment of your eye (assuming it's at an appropriate distance for you particular vision) because it is sharp to begin with.

A: I love this question! There is a subtle contradiction that you are hitting upon here and it is important to resolve it.
A camera and your eye both work in approximately the same way, and I will try to use some specific words to erase the difference between them. These are: light from some scene (a beach you are looking at, or an apple you are photographing) is directed through a tiny hole (the pupil of your eye, the aperture of the camera) to form an inverted image on a screen of sensors (rod and cone cells in your eye, the CCD grid in a modern camera, the silver halide crystals on older photographic film). In the process a lens is also used to bend the light on its way in; it is not essential to the function of the camera but makes it more useful. There may also be some notion of filtering that is not essential—black-and-white photography still exists, but your eye has different cells with different responsiveness to different colors of light and photography often tries to mirror this by creating components with similarly different responsiveness via color filters, but we can just imagine that we're talking about black-and-white photography and then layer on this detail of how the eye sees color at the end.
Just to get you thinking about holes
Now, the hole gets almost no love compared to the lens and the sensors, perhaps because it's not something one spends money on whereas one spends hundreds of dollars on good camera lenses. But it is one of these most essential things which makes photography work. So if you are a human being, sitting on a beach, what makes this wave over here different from that wave over there, is that you have to look in different directions to see them. The camera needs to take this directional information and turn it into positional information, "which sensor at which position is picking up this wave, which other position is picking up that wave?". And the hole is what allows that connection to take place. If you do not introduce the hole, then every part of the screen sees every wave and there is no notion of image, you just have a general "how bright is it outside today?" sensor but no ability to pick out the brightness in different directions. It is that you can draw a straight line from the sensor to the hole, and then continue that line outward to the scene. A hole, in other words, sits between two cones of directions that go through it, each direction going in towards the sensor corresponds perfectly to some direction going out towards the scene. And the correspondence is why the image is always inverted by 180 degrees as it goes through the hole, but we can rotate our film once we take the photograph and so this is no big deal.
Sources of blur, including the size of the hole
Now blur, comes from a couple different places.

*

*The sensors have a finite size, and so they must aggregate together a bunch of different directions, averaging over the light that they see. This is called the resolution of the sensors, and it means that if I take an photo of something which is very far away without some sort of optical magnification, and then I try to blow up the details of that photo, some of those details are just missing because I didn't have enough resolution.

*As a practical detail, any camera has a characteristic response time. For my camera, I adjust it manually, it is called the "shutter speed." Your rods and cones in your eye have this too. If the scene is changing, faster than this response time, then we are averaging over the different changed versions. This leads most notably to "motion blur" if I try to capture a ball in flight or so, but the higher my shutter speed, the more you will notice the jitter of my hands as I hold the camera as a sort of random motion blur on everything in the photograph. This is why you will see lots of tripods, and why professional photographers will often hold their arms very close to their sides, and so forth. So when you try to "blow up" that shot you may see my motion blur from my random jittering be more pronounced.

*You may have noticed that nighttime photos are more noisy or staticky than daytime ones. This has to do with a sort of intrinsic noise in the sensors; they are built to expect a certain amount of light and if they do not get that then they get "underexposed" or "overexposed" and cannot use their full range of greys to represent the minute differences in light that they are seeing. Different film has different "ISO ratings", what we might call more generically the sensors' sensitivity. Your eye has to fine-tune its sensitivity, which is why it takes a while for you to obtain "night vision" after you turn off the lights; that failure to be able to make out details is a "blur" of sorts and once your eyes are adjusted you are often amazed to think that you had trouble walking through the room when now you can see everything quite plainly. You can make this mistake of under/over-exposure in daytime photography too, but you have to make more uncomfortable tradeoffs when you don't have as much light to work with: in daylight you can set the shutter speed very low and make the aperture very narrow and still have a very bright image relative to the noise of your film; at night you have to choose either more noisy film or longer shutter speeds or larger apertures.

*If the hole is too small, it can actually be smaller than light! Light has a characteristic size called its wavelength and when it passes through holes smaller than this, it does not behave in quite the same way. For visible light, though, you have to make the hole smaller than a human hair; our pupils are millimeters wide, so this is mostly a consideration for tiny pinhole cameras; let me describe it in a footnote [1].

*Of course, there could be smudges on lenses and the like, which bend or absorb-and-reemit light so that light from the "wrong directions" hits a certain sensor. Finally:

*The hole is of nonzero size.
This last one causes the sort of blur you are talking about in your question. If the hole were infinitely small, then there would actually never be any intrinsic reason for blur except perhaps for (4) above. And you know that something has to happen here because no hole is the same as having an arbitrarily big hole, so the largeness of the hole needs to somehow continuously decay our ability to do photography from "yes" at a hole of near-zero-size to "no" at a hole of, say, the size of the hole in my guitar.
The issue is simple: remember how for a single point we had a cone-of-directions producing those images on the screen of sensors? If the hole the light passes through is of nonzero size, then you can think of it as lots (say a million) of these cones-of-directions scattered across the virtual surface of the hole, each casting its own image onto the retina. The sensors on the screen, then, average all of these different images together. So each image has crisp lines, and where all of the images agree in projecting a line on the screen you also see crisp lines: but where those images differ, you see a blur as some of the images have that line a little to the left or to the right.
If you have no lens, and the scene is very far away, then the images are not very different, and so you do not notice this blur so much. Things that are closer to the camera are blurred more and more, as looking at the object from one point in the hole, it looks slightly different from how it looks from another point one millimeter beside it in the hole. We say that the pinhole camera is focused "at infinity" without a lens in front of it, and that the size of the hole determines something called "depth of field", the smaller the pinhole the greater the depth of the field it can focus.[2]
One can also think of this with that "guitar" analogy. If I look at my guitar, I can see a lot of the wood from the backboard through the sound hole. Imagine if that space is all covered with sensors, then from this distance I can see a lot of those sensors.  If I put my eye right up next to the strings I can see entirely inside of the guitar, the whole backboard. If I move further away I see less and less until I can only see a chunk about the same size as the sound hole. What I see, are the sensors that can see me. The fewer sensors that can see me, the more crisp of an image I make on the back board. So that's why the smaller apertures make crisper images, if you prefer that explanation, and why by default you have the focus "at infinity" and there is therefore some characteristic distance for a pinhole camera where things that are "too close" get blurry.
How can a lens reduce blur?
So like I said, the lens only affects this last sort of blur, due to the images cast by different points of the hole being slightly different images, which the sensors must average over. How does it do that? By slightly warping different images from different locations.
See, when you are still at the pupil, you haven't averaged yet. You still have all of the information: two dimensions of position combined with two dimensions of direction means that you have four dimensions of information available here to describe the light from a three-dimensional scene. It is only when everything gets averaged by the sensor, that all of this information is lost.
Cast a ray from some sensor $S$ to two different points in the hole, $H
_1$ and $H_2$. With a pinhole camera these go along different lines, $\overline{SH_1}$ and $\overline{SH_2}$, and you know that they intersect at $S$ so they never intersect again. But if you put a lens in front of that pupil, you can change those directions again. Maybe now they converge again at some point $X$ out in the world. Or look at it from the reverse side, me-looking-at-my-guitar, it's like if one particular sensor on my guitar had been magnified so that it appeared to take up the whole sound hole. All the light from this area of the scene, going through that pupil, ends up at the same sensor. And now that is very much like the idea of the infinitely small pinhole: you get a crisp appearance for things at this fixed distance $L$ from the camera, because all of the images have been slightly distorted by the lens.
But it is only possible because the information has not been destroyed yet, it is still sitting in this 4-pack of 2 position coordinates in the pupil, and 2 direction coordinates from that point to the image surface. Once we average these images together we cannot uniquely specify what numbers led to them, any more than me telling you "I have three numbers which average to 5" could tell you "they are 4, 5, and 6" versus "they are 2, 6, and 7" versus "they are 4.9, 5.0, and 5.1." The inputs are now lost, and any choices I make are going to make various assumptions about distribution and approximation. This is why scientists laugh when a CSI television show says "enhance! enhance" to a photograph and it unblurs, we know that the more you enhance the more you just are confronted with the assumptions of your enhancement method and you start to see garbage which never appears in the "enhanced" photo (since the television crew started with a sharp image and blurred it—no assumptions needed there!—and is now playing this process in reverse for dramatic effect).
The introduction of a lens next to the hole (on the scene-side in a camera, on the image-side in your eye) creates a preferred distance $L$ for things to be in the scene. By controlling[3] both $L$ and the depth of field, you can then create photographs of a woman sitting at a park bench, in full detail, with things closer and further away all blurred out of focus, and it can create a great intensity of attention on that woman and that bench. Those sorts of effects. And that is why our lenses are compound, we can adjust the effective focal length $L$ by adjusting the distance between two normal lenses. We also use lenses for overall distortion, say to include a wider angle in the shot than the sensors normally see; you will see this in apartment photographs all the time where the "straight lines," carefully seen, curve a bit. And this gives a sense that the apartment is larger than it really is and also allows the photographer to take fewer shots as each shot captures more of the arrangements of walls and lights and cabinets than it otherwise would. Those sorts of distortions can generally be at least approximately undone. But the averaging that has happened at the sensor level, which manifests in the blur in the image, is intrinsic, so you are getting lots of answers saying that the information was "lost."
The important thing to understand here is that the lens is able to act before the information loss happens, when you still have a million individual crisp images across the imaginary surface of the hole which can then be distorted before they get averaged together by the sensors. If you were to then take the blurred photograph and put it in front of the camera, you no longer have a million individual crisp images at each of these points of the hole, you have a million individual blurry images at each of these points of the hole, images of the photograph you took.
But! Here is one last fun and exciting idea. What if you take a million different blurry photographs of the same scene from different positions? Now you get into some interesting ideas that one might see, say, in astronomy or in tomography -- the process of trying to use a bunch of images of light or X-rays or what have you passing through a body, to reconstruct what's happening inside the body. And you might indeed be able to make several assumptions about a model to say "hey, the light hitting this sensor in this photo is a sum of the light emitted by these points, the light hitting that sensor in that photo is almost the same points except here around the edges, so if I subtract the one photo from the other I actually get a sort of more-precise view of the light emitted around the edges here, and maybe I can build up a 2D or 3D view that is less blurry than any of my particular images, by reasoning backward about what the original scene had to look like to make all of these different blurry photos at the same time." So that sort of reconstruction is possible, and you can combine blurred photographs to try and unblur them, if you know that they were taken by identical cameras at nearly identical times and you know something about how they were positioned relative to each other.
Notes

*

*So light is about a thousandth of the width of a hair, and atoms are about a thousandth the wavelength of light. Here's the deal: most of what you know about light traveling in straight lines, actually is not what light naturally "wants" to do! Light at any point wants to go in all directions, so the light going down a hallway actually wants to bend around corners in that hallway. It is stopped from doing this by a phenomenon called destructive interference, where the light rays that do not take the shortest path are nearby other light rays which also do not take the shortest path, but they all pick up very different phases when they reach the target and so they all tend to destructively interfere, and only the light nearest the shortest-path (or a longest path!) all tends to have roughly the same phase and therefore constructively "stack up" into a substantial amount. This "rays of light" description is actually an interference phenomenon and if you try to make the hole too small, the light actually starts to do what it wants to do, to go in all directions, again.

*Funny story, I discovered this actually as a child. When I was a kid, there was a time during which I was not aware that I needed glasses—nearsightedness kind of slowly grew on me and I did not realize that I was not able to see what others could see, that for others distant trees were not in fact green blobs but they could still make out individual leaves. But I still remember that in my classes I would put my thumb and forefinger of one finger up to my thumb of another finger and look through that tiny little pinhole. My teachers must have thought I was just being silly all the time, but that was not it: I could actually read better through the smaller pinhole I was forming!

*So a camera actually has multiple lenses and controls the distance between them to have an adjustable focal length. It is true that one could adjust the screen's distance to also adjust the focal length, but in practice this is not how the eye focuses things. Instead the lens in your eyeball is connected to some muscles, called ciliary muscle, all around it that allows your eyeball to adjust the lens's curvature by stretching it. The basic idea is that you have a bunch of strings on the edges of the lens holding it taut and flat for long-range viewing, and when you need to "accommodate" to see something close, these ciliary muscles contract the envelope—the not-lens thing that your lens is connected to by these strings. Doing so releases the tension in the strings and so allows the lens to return to a more round state, this is why it seems to be relaxing to look at far-off things and tense to look at things close-up. So your body does not adjust the retina, it has a mechanism to apply tension to release the lens. I assume that it is "backwards" this way because turning the strings into muscle fibers would require them to have an active blood supply which would make it really hard to keep the space transparent, but it might also be simply a historical accident, like the blind spots that you don't know about because all vision is actually a hallucination.

A: The human eye focusing is resolving all the possible detail it can from a scene that is sharp and not distorted.  The details of exactly how your brain forms an image from what your eye does is extremely complex, but the basics are : sharp initial image can be focused on to produce sharp image.
The blurry photo cannot be sharply resolved in that way because (surprise) the data is simply not there to make it focused.  In effect the "sharpest image" of a blurry scene is a blurry image.  It's a faithful rendering of the scene.
The process for (trying) to deblur a blurry image is called convolution.  This is not the same or the reverse of focusing on a sharp scene to produce a sharp image.  They work differently.  A lens like the eye cannot do that complex operation.  Even that deblurring process (which you can see done in many photos nowadays by software) is not 100% and it effectively makes "educated guesses" about what the scene originally looked like – guesses guided by good math and physics but still guesses (I suppose "estimate" would be a fairer word).

A: Here's an explanation using geometric optics.
I'll replace the human eye, which has a quasirandom scattering of light sensors on a curved surface, with a digital camera that has a regular grid of sensors on a flat surface. This doesn't alter the problem in any essential way. Let's also not worry about color.
Say the camera is focused on a (monochrome) LCD monitor that is displaying some image. With an ideal lens and very careful alignment, the rays emitted by each pixel of the monitor will be focused onto a unique pixel of the camera sensor, and you will get a pixel-perfect reproduction of the original image.
Move the LCD monitor farther from the camera, so it's no longer in focus. Instead of using the lens equation to model this as you usually would, just use the fact that the lens focuses rays coming from points in the focal plane to points on the sensor. Those rays are still there, since the light passes through the focal plane on its way to the camera. The difference is that the rays emerging in different directions from a given point in the focal plane now come from different pixels of the monitor. This means that they have different brightnesses.
The camera sensor doesn't record the direction-dependent brightness of the light that hits it; it only records the total intensity (which becomes an average intensity once you normalize the overall exposure). If you take the (blurry) photograph recorded by the camera and display it on a monitor in the focal plane, you aren't accurately reproducing the light that was there before, because the monitor wrongly emits light of (roughly) the same brightness in all directions from each point. The refocusing operation that would have worked for the original light field doesn't work for this radically different light field.
So-called light-field cameras, which record the intensity of light arriving at the same point on the film from different directions separately, do exist. If you took the data recorded from such a camera, and displayed it on a monitor that could reproduce the light field it measured, then you actually could refocus your eye (or a standard camera) to see a sharp reproduction of what was on the original LCD monitor, whether or not the light-field camera was focused on it. (The notion of focus is largely meaningless for light-field cameras.)

A: Part of this question should be straightened out in biology SE. In my knowledge the eye does not flex the retina to get an image.
What remains is why a lens cannot make a sharp image out of a blurred photo. It must be obvious that lenses cannot see sharp through a fog. It cannot undo the scattering of a billion randomly placed tiny water droplets. A lens can undo a blurry image due to defocus. This is because the light contains much more information than the image. A photo taken at defocus no longer contains this information.

A: The answer to your question is the lack of information (lack of phase, definition per unit area) in the blurred image relative to a real (live image).
That being said, there is something called deconvolution, and there are two main types:

*

*artificial, in this case a computer algorithm tries to make computerized educated guesses about what the original objects in the image looked like

In mathematics, deconvolution is an algorithm-based process used to enhance signals from recorded data. Where the recorded data can be modeled as a pure signal that is distorted by a filter (a process known as convolution), deconvolution can be used to restore the original signal.1 The concept of deconvolution is widely used in the techniques of signal processing and image processing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconvolution

*biological, in this case the human brain can recognize objects looking at a blurred image. Please note that this has nothing to do with our eye's focusing capabilities, but it is a capability of our brain processes

In certain cases the human brain can use information it stores (memories) to recognize blurred images.

On the image there are objects that are impossible to reconstruct using artificial deconvolution, but the human brain might recognize them.

A: Most of the answers so far are inaccurate or wrong (I will explain why below).  The answer is that it is not possible to deblur an image because photos and videos record only the amplitude of a light field and not the phase.  A light field is characterized by amplitude and phase (and polarization, but that's unimportant here), but the phase is typically more important.  This is dramatically illustrated by the following figure, taken from this paper:

Without getting too much into the details, what the author has done is passed two images through a lens and swapped the phases.  The image formed from "dog amplitude + cat phase" (c) looks unmistakably like a cat, and the image formed from "cat amplitude + dog phase" (d) looks like a dog, which shows that it is the phase which stores most of the information in the light field here.
When you take a picture, you record only the amplitude.  If your image is not in the focal plane, then the lost phase information is almost unrecoverable, and your eye cannot refocus the image.

Note: I said above that the lost phase information is "almost" unrecoverable.  There actually are techniques to recover this information, known as phase retrieval, but they are hard.  This is an area of active research.  The human eye and brain are not generally capable of doing this algorithmic task.  Deblurring algorithms can be thought of as heuristic approaches to this problem which are adequate in special cases.

A few comments about why other answers are incomplete or incorrect:

*

*Deblurring is not simply deconvolution.  A blurry image can be thought of as a sharp image which has been convolved with a point spread function and then had its phase thrown away.  Deconvolution is easy (and can be done by eyes via focusing and by brains in a variety of ways); phase retrieval is hard and generally can't be done by animals.

*This issue has nothing at all to do with binocular vision.  The same considerations apply if you have one eye closed.

*This issue also has nothing to do with other sources of blur (e.g. aberration).  The OP considers blur from defocusing, which is purely a matter of phase loss.

One other answer that is correct is that of @benrg, who approaches this question from the perspective of geometric optics.  Phase information in wave optics corresponds to the direction of rays in geometric optics, and the fact that pictures do not record phase information is equivalent to saying that they do not record the direction of rays.  The wave optics description that I've given in this answer is "more fundamental" than the geometric optics description, but they are both true, valid explanations of why you cannot refocus a blurry image.

A: Because it's a 2-dimensional image.
Humans use binocular parallax (the slight difference in the image coming from both eyes) to perceive distance in 3 dimensions. The parts of the image that are convergent (i.e. the same in both eyes) are in focus, and the divergent parts (i.e. different in each eye) are out of focus.  We change our focus by fine-tuning our pupillary distance to adjust the convergence — in other words, we cross our eyes slightly to focus on nearby objects, and relax them to focus on distant objects.
Since the entirety of the scene in a photo or video is the same physical distance from your eyes, parallax does not exist, and this fine-tuning is not possible.
In case you're thinking about "3D" images, it's not possible with those either, for the same reason — it's still a 2 dimensional image that's "faking" parallax to trick your brain.

Just FYI, your understanding of how your eyes focus is not correct. The retina does not have any muscle tissue than can flex it. The only muscles in your eye are the extraocular muscles (7 muscles used for moving your eyeball), and iris dilator muscles (2 muscles) for adjusting the light aperture.
There's also the macula which is an area of the retina responsible for detailed, high-resolution images, and the scotoma (the so-called "blind spot") where you can't see anything.  Even if you're focusing with just one eye, you're still moving your entire eyeball slightly so that the image you're trying to view is centered on your macula.

A: Imagine you took a photo of a really dark scene, so dark the whole photo was just black. Could an animal with really big eyes look at the picture and see the original scene in full detail?
Well, we might not be able to ask the animal, but we can certainly try with photoshop, and no, you end up with a full gray image instead of a full black image, with lots of noise.
Why? Because the information you're trying to get out was never in the image. It was in the light (if you had big enough eyes or a big enough lens), but once the image is taken, that data is missing in the image made from that light.
Same idea with focusing. An unfocused image just doesn't have the detail needed to resolve the original scene in full detail. The blurry light that entered the camera had that information, but it was lost as soon as the photo was taken. If you'd had access to the original scene, though, and a strong enough lens, sure you could, but that's what eyes do :)

A: For some "blurred fotos" eye can focus actually! Theese called "holograms", they preserve light wave phase, compared to usual photos, which stored only amplitude. Traveling light is complex thingie, only modulus of complex number is important for sensor as your eye, so you can't differ foto from live image, but argument of complex number is required to do refocus.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Віктор Кле́мперер (; 9 жовтня 1881, Ландсберг-на-Варті, Пруссія (нині — Гожув Великопольський, Польща) — 11 лютого 1960, Дрезден) — німецький письменник, філолог і журналіст, дослідник тоталітарного мислення і мови нацистської Німеччини.

Біографія
Народився в родині реформованого рабина Вільгельма Клемперера та Генрієтти Клемперер (у дівоцтві: Франке), як наймолодший (дев'ятий) серед дітей. Його брат — хірург Георг Клемперер, а двоюрідний брат — диригент Отто Клемперер.

У 1902–1912 роках вивчав романську і німецьку філології в університетах Мюнхена, Женеви, Парижа і Берліна, після 1905 рік а працював журналістом у Берліні, публікував прозу. 1912 року перейшов до протестантизму.

Дисертацію писав у відомого філолога-романіста і теоретика мови Карла Фосслера, захистив її 1914 року. У 1914—1915 роках читав лекції в університеті Неаполя, з початком Першої світової війни пішов на фронт добровольцем. З 1920 року був професором романської філології у Вищій технічній школі Дрездена.

1935 року, через 2 роки після приходу нацистів до влади, був відсторонений від викладання як єврей, позбувся роботи й був переселений в гетто, але, оскільки його дружина була визнана чистокровною арійкою, уникнув депортації. Під час війни переховувався в серболужицькому селі Пескеци, жителі якого, як він писав, відрізнялися «антигітлерівськими настроями». Після 13 лютого 1945 року, коли нацистська влада прийняла рішення про депортацію всіх євреїв, включаючи й тих, що були в «змішаних шлюбах», Клемперер разом з дружиною, скориставшись хаосом під час повітряного нальоту союзників на Дрезден, втекли і сховалися у Верхній Баварії на території, незабаром зайнятій військами союзників.

Після війни Клемперер переїхав до НДР, читав лекції в Берліні і Галле, був депутатом Народної палати від фракції Культурбунду. Член СЄПН, член АН НДР. Видав двотомник праць про французьке просвітництво («Доба Вольтера» — 1954, «Доба Руссо» — 1966, посмертно).

Щоденник
Після встановлення нацистського режиму почав вести щоденник, в якому проявив себе не лише як сучасник подій, але й тонкий філолог: відзначав зміни щоденного життя, звичок і мови співвітчизників, лексики та інтонацій засобів масової інформації, вуличних оголошень тощо. Цю новомову він назвав «мовою Третього рейху» (). 1968 року почалася публікація його щоденників, які виходили потім різними частинами в багатьох виданнях, включаючи спеціально коментовані. До 1980-х років ім'я Клемперера було порівняно мало відомо: у ФРН — через його членства в СЄПН, в соціалістичних країнах — через надто доскіпливий аналіз тоталітарних мовних механізмів (і загальної небажаності теми геноциду євреїв). У 1980-1990-ті роки книжка Клемперера LTI стала світовою сенсацією, була перекладена багатьма мовами і вважається сьогодні одним з найвідомих щоденників, визначним документом «літератури Голокосту».

Твори

Прижиттєві видання
 Paul Lindau. Berlin 1909.
 Die Zeitromane Friedrich Spielhagens und ihre Wurzeln. Weimar 1913.
 Montesquieu (Габілітаційна дисертація, Band I (1914) und Band II (1915))
 Idealistische Neuphilologie. (Festschrift für Karl Vossler zum 6. September 1922, mit Eugen Lerch) Heidelberg 1922.
 Die moderne französische Prosa 1870—1920. Leipzig 1923.
 Romanische Literaturen von der Renaissance bis zur Französischen Revolution. (Mit Helmut Hatzfeld und Fritz Neubert — Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft, hrsg. von Oskar Walzel) Potsdam 1924.
 Jahrbuch für Philologie. (Mit Eugen Lerch). München 1925 und 1927
 Die moderne französische Literatur und die deutsche Schule. Drei Vorträge. Leipzig 1925.
 Stücke und Studien zu modernen französischen Prosa. Leipzig 1926.
 Romanische Sonderart. Geistesgeschichtliche Studien. München 1926.
 Pierre Corneille. (Epochen der französischen Literatur). München 1933.
 Die französische Literatur von Napoleon bis zur Gegenwart. 4 Bde., Berlin 1925—1931 (Neuausgabe 1956 unter dem Titel Geschichte der französischen Literatur im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert).
 LTI — Notizbuch eines Philologen. Aufbau Verlag, Berlin 1947. (dann Max Niemeyer Verlag Halle 1956, 1966 Reclam Taschenbuch, Reclam Verlag Leipzig, 1966 auch in Westdeutschland, Hardcoverausgabe, Melzer Verlag, Frankfurt, Titel Die unbewältigte Sprache — Aus dem Notizbuch eines Philologen. LTI. Danach viele weitere Taschenbuchauflagen bei Reclam Leipzig, kommentierte Hardcoverneuausgabe, hrsg. Elke Fröhlich, Reclam, Stuttgart 2010, ISBN 978-3-15-010743-0. Ab 2015 25. Auflage, wieder als Tb, Hrsg. Elke Fröhlich, Reclam Stuttgart, ISBN 978-3-15-020520-4.)
 Geschichte der französischen Literatur im 18. Jahrhundert. Bd. 1: Berlin 1954, Bd. 2: Halle 1966.

Посмертні публікації
 Geschichte der französischen Literatur im 18. Jahrhundert. Band II: Das Jahrhundert Rousseaus. Halle 1966.
 Curriculum Vitae. Erinnerungen 1881—1918. (Band I—II). Berlin 1996, ISBN 3-7466-5500-5.
 Warum soll man nicht auf bessere Zeiten hoffen. Aufbau Verlag, Berlin 2017, ISBN 978-3-351-03661-4

Видання щоденника
 Leben sammeln, nicht fragen wozu und warum. Tagebücher 1919—1932. Berlin 1996, ISBN 3-351-02391-X.
 Man möchte immer weinen und lachen in einem. Revolutionstagebuch 1919. Aufbau Verlag, Berlin 2015, ISBN 978-3-351-03598-3.
 als Hörbuch gelesen von Burghart Klaußner. Aufbau Audio, Berlin 2015 (аудіокнига).
 Walter Nowojski und Hadwig Klemperer (Hrsg.): «Ich will Zeugnis ablegen bis zum letzten.» Tagebücher 1933—1945. (Band I—VIII). Aufbau, Berlin 1995, ISBN 3-7466-5514-5.
 Das Tagebuch 1933—1945. Eine Auswahl für junge Leser. Bearbeitet von Harald Roth. Aufbau-Taschenbuch 5516, Berlin 1997, ISBN 3-7466-5516-1.
 Die Tagebücher 1933—1945. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. CD-ROM. Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-89853-550-2.
 «Ich will Zeugnis ablegen bis zum letzten.» Tagebücher 1933—1945. Eine Auswahl. Berlin 2007, (SpiegelEdition 23) ISBN 978-3-87763-023-5.
 Und so ist alles schwankend — Tagebücher Juni–Dezember 1945. Berlin 1996, ISBN 3-7466-5515-3.
 So sitze ich denn zwischen allen Stühlen. Tagebücher 1945—1959. (Band I—II). Berlin 1999, ISBN 3-351-02393-6

Примітки

Література
 Walser M. Das Prinzip Genauigkeit: Laudatio auf Victor Klemperer. — Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 1996
 Heer H. Im Herzen der Finsternis: Victor Klemperer als Chronist der NS-Zeit. — Berlin: Aufbau-Verlag, 1997.
 Victor Klemperer: ein Leben in Bildern. — Berlin: Aufbau-Verlag, 1999.
 Combes A. Didier, H. Identités, existences, résistances: réflexions autour des Journaux 1933—1945 de Victor Klemperer. Villeneuve d'Ascq: Université Charles-de-Gaulle Lille 3, 2000
 Jacobs P. Victor Klemperer: im Kern ein deutsches Gewächs: eine Biographie. — Berlin: Aufbau Taschenbuch Verlag, 2000.
 Nowojski W. Victor Klemperer (1881—1960): Romanist, Chronist der Vorhölle. — Teetz: Hentrich & Hentrich; Berlin: Stiftung Neue Synagoge Berlin, Centrum Judaicum, 2004.
 Papp K. Deutschland von innen und von aussen: die Tagebücher von Victor Klemperer und Thomas Mann zwischen 1933 und 1955. — Berlin: WVB, 2006.

Посилання

 Inhaltsübersicht zum Nachlass von Prof. Victor Klemperer — Список архівних матеріалів Клемперера в Саксонській земельній бібліотеці (Дрезден)

Німецькі письменники
Німецькі філологи
Німецькі журналісти
Німецькі літературознавці
Автори відомих щоденників
Політики Німеччини
Романісти
Науковці Берлінського університету
Викладачі Грайфсвальдського університету

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia