Wednesday, 26 September 2018

Why Goats? The History of an Occult Symbol


For more posts on occult symbolism, click here. For an introduction to the Band, click the featured post to the right.

Other links: The Band on GabThe Band on Oneway 


So far, we've looked at snakes and owls as ancient symbols with occult associations that continue into the present day. The goat is another animal with a long history of dark connotations that need to be untangled. In order to keep these from running too long, we'll break down the occult goat over two shorter posts.



"Vintage style" Halloween postcard from ebay

This is typical of a recent tendency to make symbols of evil "cute" or funny. But when you look at the history, there is nothing funny about them. What's wrong with things that actually are cute? Even better, ask what sort of person might want to push this.






We'll start with the problem with any old and popular symbol - it doesn't stay exactly the same. Symbols keep their meanings over the years because like-minded people keep using them, but the cultural context can be different. New users choose a symbol for its associations, but apply it to their circumstances and point of view.  How the symbol was used - its exact meaning - depends on the time and place. For symbols like goats and owls, the chain of uses that make up the full set of connotations goes back thousands of years. This makes the use of the symbol difficult to straighten out for several reasons.


1. Ancient Origins

When symbols date back to ancient times, their origins are generally lost in time. 



Greek Bronze Goat, circa 550-500 BC, 7.8 cm, Private collection

Historians and archaeologists find examples of their use, but lack the information to tell a conclusive story. Sometimes the same symbol will turn up in different cultures, but it is impossible to say whether these are separate parallel developments or evidence of lost contacts. We can form a pretty good idea of the meaning of an ancient symbol, but we don't know where or why it first appeared.














2. Historical Meanings

This is complicated because symbols develop a set of meanings, but the historical perspectives of the users don't stay the same. Over a long period of time uses can build up to the point where one symbol can have a whole range of associations that are related, but with differences. 



Christus-Helios, (Christ as the Sun), 3rd century AD, vault mosaic in the Mausoleum of the Julii, Grotte Vaticane, Rome

When Christian symbolism was forming, older symbols got new roles. The cult of Sol Invictus or unconquered sun combined worship of the pagan God Helios/Apollo with the emperor. Imperial Christianity turned this into a representation of Christ. Worship of pagan gods and emperors is antithetical to Christian belief, but the other associations with divine radiance and enlightened authority let it move from one group of users to a new one. 






One other complication with historical meanings are the reliability of the sources. Occultists were often persecuted for their views, making them prone to secrecy and misdirection, although serving the Father of Lies isn't great for your credibility at the best of times. Many historical accounts are as fake as today's news.


3. Meaning in the Present or Recent Past

Who is using the symbol today, and for what reason? This is just number 2 carried into the present. But it does underscore the importance of user belief in understanding how occult symbols are treated. Many New Agey types are either just LARPers or modern animists and/or polytheists, viewing the supernatural as a bucket of disconnected entities and forces. Nineteenth-century "supernaturalists" fit this category, as do the various earth-spirit wiccans and neo-pagans. These are the people likely to sperg out over the subtle differences between a "Baphomet" and a "Moloch", because they see these as completely historically distinct.



Eliphas Levi, Baphomet, or the Sabbatic Goat, drawing for his Transcendental Magic: Its Doctrine and Ritual, 1854 (click for the 1896 English translation)

Levi's abomination was a mash-up of occult symbols in the form beloved by Satanists. It supposedly represents the coming together of all opposites - the Latin words on the arms mean to separate and join. The gestures, hermaphrodism, caduceus, etc. all refer to the reconciling of opposites (click for a breakdown of the symbolism without having to slog through Levi's pompous dreck).  

As an absolute principle, the reconciling of all opposites is profoundly immoral. It essentially means all perspectives are equally beneficial to human well-being. Or pink slime. No society can exist without some ethical framework. It is historically and logically obvious that this extreme permissiveness leads only to anarchy and tyranny. Coincidence?




Occultists who truly believe in Satanic power are operating within a Christian metaphysics, where supernatural powers are either divine or demonic, good or evil. The historical variations between demons is not significant from this point of view because they are all claws on the same taloned hand. This is the idea behind the occult pyramid - on the surface there are many groups believing themselves independent, but move up and the all dance to the same dark piper.



Zahari Zograf, Dimitar Zograf, and others, Magicians and Healers are Servants of the Devilcompleted in 1846, Rila Monastery church, Bulgaria

This painting includes inscriptions that explain how folk magic is just veiled Satanism.











The rest of this post will look at the ancient associations that made the goat meaningful for more recent users. The next post will take these into the modern world and look at the sort of characters who might be drawn to them.



Cylinder seal with two goats, Proto-Elamite, 3100-3000 BC, steatite or calcite, 6.2 x 1.9 cm, British Museum

These seals could be rolled on clay to make an imprint. This one from ancient Iran is over 5000 years old.

Goats are believed to be one of the domesticated animals, so they've been around humans for a long time. 




Early people tended to imagine gods and other supernatural creatures with animal characteristics, so goat symbols are as old as civilization.



The Adda Seal, Akkadian, 2300 BC, greenstone, 3.9 x 2.55 cm, British Museum, London

The ancient Middle Eastern ibex or wild goat (not an antelope) was a symbol of the Sumerian god Enki (Akkadian Ea).

Roman Capricorn mosaic, second century AD, Room 4 of the Baths of Neptune, Ostia Antica, Italy. 

In ancient Sumer, the goat and fish were both associated with creator gods because became symbols of fertility and generation. Over time, the two were combined into the strange kusarikku, or Goat-Fish, which became the weird Zodiac sign of Capricorn. Remember that the Western Zodiac was an ancient Middle Eastern invention, either from Babylon or the older Sumeria.



Most early animal symbols were based on simple associations. Owls have bright eyes that penetrate the dark, so they became associated with knowledge and insight. Dogs are faithful, big predators like bears and lions are strong, lambs are gentle, and so on. The connection between goats and fertility seems to come from the sexual aggressiveness of a male goat in heat. This is certainly the case as we move ahead in time to ancient Greece.



Silenus and billy goat. Side A of an Attic black-figure kyathos, circa 520 BCE, terracotta, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Greek myths are filled with magical human-animal hybrids like centaurs and the Minotaur. Satyrs were wild part-humans with goat legs known for unbridled lust. Silenus was a follower of the frenzied wine-god Dionysios and was often depicted as a satyr.



Michelangelo, Bacchus1496-7, marble, 203 cm, Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence

The Greeks divided human nature into rational and animal sides, often symbolized by Apollo, god of light, and Dionysios (Roman Bacchus), god of wine and madness. Intoxication, anarchy, and raw libido were seen as expressions of the animal side, so the half-goat satyrs were connected with the latter.

Here, the satyr eats grapes while ignoring the lion skin or symbol of death. Pursuing only the pleasures of the flesh is a metaphysical dead end. This is a more realistic interpretation than the childish, self-destructive hedonism of Baphomet.

Ithyphallic statue of Pan, 5th century BC, Musée de Mariemont, Belgium

Pan was a rustic Greek god who was not included among the Olympians. He was represented as a satyr and associated with shepherds and other rural folk. His enlarged phallus is a sign of the connection between fertility and the sexual aggressiveness symbolized by goats. 

For the Greeks, sexual lust represented carnal animal pleasure, which made it morally inferior to the more intellectualized life of the mind. It is reason that separates humans from beasts, and unchecked hedonism is a threat to the higher achievements of rational beings. The feral man-goat personifies these dangerous impulses.











Aphrodite, Pan and Eros, circa 100 BC, 1.55 m, National Archaeological Museum, Athens

On first glance, this statue just seems typical of the collapse of classical vales in the Hellenistic world. There are parallels between that hedonistic polyglot culture and the moral decay of our own globalist consumerism. But there is a message here as well. Mindless animal libido - represented by Pan - is an active threat to rational sexual discrimination. The goddess of love's hand is in a pose known as the Venus pudica, suggesting a coy modesty while calling attention to the concealed genitals. The idea is that female restraint is a fig leaf easily pulled off in the heat of the moment.









Pan Teaching Daphnis to Play the Panpipes, Roman copy after a Greek original by Heliodoros from the 3rd-2nd centuries BC, 158 cm, National Archaeological Museum, Naples 

Naked lust knows no natural boundaries and Pan was a willing switch-hitter. The sexual overtones are obvious in the goat-god's expression and the placement of his leg. The connection between the wild music of the pipes, sexual abandon, and transgressive behavior is also clear. 

The way these later Hellenistic statues seem to celebrate sexual hedonism is very different tone from the older values of Classical Greece. The earlier Greeks saw the dyscivic outcome of the "if it feel's good do it" way of life as something to warn against. Tearing down social norms for thoughtless momentary impulses is something the Hellenistic elites share with modern leftists and SJWs.

Titian, The Flaying of Marsyas, circa 1570-76, oil on canvas, 212 x 207 cm, National Museum, Kroměříž, Czech Republic

Renaissance master Titian shows the gruesome fate of Marsyas, a satyr that challenged Apollo to a music contest for his skin and lost. This was interpreted as the triumph of rational harmonic "Apollonian" music over the wild, carnal "Dionysian" music of the satyr's Pan pipes. 

Renaissance thinkers agreed with the Classical moral message of reason over animal passion, and civilization over savagery, no matter how strong the impulse might be in the moment. 





The Greeks realized that a wild, lustful animal nature was part of being human, but unlike Postmoderns, were smart enough to realize that it had to be contained to maintain a functioning social order. They invented cathartic festivals and performances as a way to release pressure. Greek drama appears to have been invented for the Dionysian festival in Athens to provide a powerful emotional experience that was socially safe. Designating a special time, giving oneself up to a deity, or playing a character, are all ways from taking a break from regular life without breaking it. 



Johannes LingelbachCarneval in Rome, circa 1650, oil on canvas, 42.5 x 51.5 cm, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna

This was the same idea as the Christian Carneval or Mardi Gras. Notice the use of masks - anonymity adds to the sense of a break from the normal order. The idea is that afterwards, there is a return to civilized life. The Dionysia wraps up, the play comes to an end, and Carneval gives way to the atonement of Lent. It's not supposed to become the new normal.


Blowing off steam still had to be contained in a functioning society, or else you get the sort of cultural decay we see in the modern West. 


Pan Copulating with a She-goat, second-first century BC, 44.4 cm, National Archaeological Museum, Naples

Presented without further comment.















Coming back to Levi's occult figure of Baphomet, the combination of goat parts and the notion of tearing down, ahem, "unifying", boundaries and distinctions makes more sense. There is a lot more to the Baphomet that we will look at in the next post, but anarchy and degradation dressed up as sexual "freedom" or " being fluid" - Baphomet is literally a hermaphrodite - goes way back. The difference is, the modern occult takes this hatred for reason and nation to an extreme and then turns it into a god. In a world without order, the biggest sociopath is king. 


The Christian Goat

Satanists are quick to disavow any belief in God, but all the historical weight behind their symbolism - even the name of their "religion" - is based on a Christian framework. True believers are inverting Christian morality and the meaning of Satan, but the terms they are using and the structure they are inverting IS Christian. To understand goat symbolism in the modern occult, we have to run the ancient goat through a Christian filter. 



Gustave Doré, The Triumph Of Christianity Over Paganism, 1868, oil on canvas, 118 x 79 cm, Art Gallery of Hamilton, Canada

Christianity adopted some aspects of Classical thought, but changed them to fit their viewpoint. Humans were still seen as having two natures, only the higher rational part was connected to the soul. Christian morality - actual Christian morality, not the man-made dogma of contemporary churchians - rejects excessive interest in worldly pleasures because it distracts from spiritual things. There is an order to nature, and to productive societies, because they reflect God's order or plan for Creation.













The Christian emphasis on orderly restraint when it comes to hedonistic impulses - behavioral extremes in general, really - gives the goat new life as a symbol of immoral lust. But now this debauchery has a spiritual dimension. It isn't just a transgression against reason and the national good, it is a rebellion against God's order. 

And we know who that means...













Francisco de Goya, Witches' Sabbath or The Great He-Goat, 1821–23, oil on plaster transferred to canvas, 140.5 × 435.7 cm, Museo del Prado, Madrid



The next post will look more modern, Satanic associations with the goat. 











------

Wednesday, 19 September 2018

Perversions of Nationhood: Enlightenment and Empire


If you are new to the Band, please see this post for an introduction and overview of the point of this blog. Older posts are in the archive on the right.


Other links: The Band on GabThe Band on Oneway 


The last post looked into some inherent problems in the thought and politics of the English Enlightenment and what these looked like architecturally. A couple of really important developments came up that play major roles in the rise of Postmodernism and the current attack on Western culture. We'll run through them quickly.


Foreign rulers

John Michael Wright, Charles II of England in Coronation Robes, circa 1661-62, oil on canvas, 281.9 x 239.2 cm, Royal Collection, Hampton Court Palace

Samuel Wale, The Bill of Rights Ratified at the Revolution by King William, and Queen Mary, Previous to their Coronation, 1783, engraving on paper, 30.1 × 21.5 cm, National Portrait Gallery, London




In post-Tudor England, this meant literal foreigners, but it applies to any rulership structure that doesn't share the culture and values of the people it rules over. At a time when Western leadership is hostile to its national cultures and treasonously promotes global subservience and foreign invasion, this is obvious. 



The Great Rapprochement, 1898, promotional poster for the United States and Great Britain Industrial Exposition, Donaldson Litho Co.

Fake national personifications Uncle Sam and  John Bull shake hands while fake "goddesses" Britannia and Columbia, look on. 

The idea of building fake "national" culture around alien subjugation is nothing new. But the strain of it infecting the West today is a direct descendant of the fugazi patriotism spun up during this time. 













The Aristocracy

The English nobility had ancient privileges that were enshrined in the Magna Carta, and enriched by the belief in the inherent superiority of their own blue blood. When the Glorious Revolution established Parliament as the supreme ruling body, the presence of the House of Lords made the aristocracy even more powerful. But they were a completely separate culture from the English people, kept apart by rigid class, physical, economic, familial, and institutional barriers. 



William Hogarth, Assembly at Wanstead House, the family and friends of Sir Richard Child, Viscount Castlemaine, circa 1729–31, oil on canvas, 64.7 x 76.2 cm, Philadelphia Museum of Art



The separate 
culture.







Jean-Baptiste Charpentier, The Family of the Duke of Penthièvre, 1768, oil on canvas, 176 x 256 cm, Versailles 

The aristocracy had more in common with their European counterparts than their English "co-nationalists". This made them proto-globalists. It's not surprising that their policies benefited them, without thought for the people. This should also seem familiar.

Sir Godfrey Kneller, The Harvey Family, 1721, oil on canvas, 234.8 x 283.8, Tate

The aristocracy provided an aspirational  model for the growing wealthy merchant class to emulate. Class envy drove traders and bankers to LARP as gentry. This should also seem familiar.











"Rationalist" Empiricism

The English system advanced behind a version of one of the most basic and pernicious Enlightenment bait and switches - pretending a local tendency is a universal law. The Scientific Revolution made empiricism systematic and pushed it to the forefront of epistemology. This is not a problem, because empirical methods are the only way to obtain objective knowledge of the world around us, however we define that world ontologically.



Diagram of a Newcomen engine from Nehemiah Hawkins, New Catechism of the Steam Engine, New York: Theo Audel, 1904, originally published in 1897

The Newcomen engine was invented in 1712 and is a forerunner to Watt's more famous steam engine. It was an important step on the road to the Industrial Revolution, and an example of English empirical science.








 As the leading adopter of this new scientific attitude, England shot to the forefront of innovation and would eventually become the world's most powerful economy. None of that seems strange - it is logical that the first nation to embrace systematic empirical thought would also be the first to benefit from the unprecedented economic boom called the Industrial Revolution that followed. 



William Hogarth, The Tavern Scene from A Rake's Progress1732-35, oil on canvas,  62.5 x 75 cm, Sir John Soane's Museum, London

Hogarth's satirical series tells the story of a young commoner who inherits his father's fortune and blows it on a debauched, aristocratic lifestyle. A monied leisure class serviced by syphilitic whores - the black spots hide the sores - is not an index of cultural progress.



What isn't logical is to claim that measurable technical and scientific progress is the same thing as the metaphysical "progress" dreamed up by intellectual con men peddling fictions of teleological history. Figuring out how to transform thermal into kinetic energy with a steam engine is utterly irrelevant to the moral or cultural direction of a nation. 

Getting to the point more quickly than usual:

















We'll start with a broad premise:

Empire is an extension of nation, but a perverted one. 

A working definition of nation is necessary. This will have to be general, since we are tracing large historical patterns. Generally speaking then, this opening from Infogalactic will do:


"A nation (from Latin: natio, "people, tribe, kin, genus, class, flock") is a large group or collective of people with common characteristics attributed to them - including language, traditions, mores (customs), habitus (habits), and ethnicity. By comparison, a nation is more impersonal, abstract, and overtly political than an ethnic group. It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity, and particular interests."


The edges are always blurry, because any collective movement or entity is made up of a variety of individuals, some of whom will be misaligned with the dominant values. This has long been exploited by pedants on the globalist left with what can be describes as weaponized absolutisms. Organic, somewhat messy communities are attacked from the two extremes of absolute atomism and absolute collectivism. 

"Absolute atomism" is approached from different angles, both stemming from that Enlightenment idol "Equality", itself a fake absolutism. 

The initial lie is that basic fairness - equal protection under the law - and metaphysics - souls are the same in God's eyes - means we are all the same, full stop. 

We can break that down into its structure.















Here's an analogy to make the dishonesty clearer. 
























Put this way, it is retarded, but this is the precondition needed to the Marxist/Communist/ Postmodern/globalist transformation of humanity into fungible units of production and consumption. 


Promo image from Pink Floyd's The Wall, 1982

But it's hard to sell people on becoming pink slime. So fungibility has to seem cool. What's "image is everything" but "everything's fake" put another way?






Institutions are corrupted, then corrupt voices use the corruption as an excuse to gain more control. For example, leftist policies cause failing schools which cause leftist policies to "fix" them. Big government becomes an ally in the war against community standards, always pushing materialist atomism while gathering more control. It's not like local school boards were given a choice.



Fake "rebellion" is the fig leaf of cool over the fungibility - dress wacky, put things in untraditional orifices, but do nothing to impede the creep of central control. 

In hindsight, an argument can be made for hanging dyscivic poseurs like this.



Stock photo of Victoria Josepha Sackville-West, Vita's mother, circa 1885

Quelle suprise. Leftist darling Vita was an aristocrat. We thought those values looked familiar. In other words debauch your way through the trust fund because as long as we keep the estates and dance for the bankers, there'll always be more!











"Iconic" Woodstock photo

Vita's advice plays out differently without daddy's money. 

It is worth noting that the media is still pushing this dreck as aspirational. 





So communities can't say a word, but central authorities can encroach in more and more aspects of life, erode rights, and attack the idea of values other than theirs with impunity. The endpoint is pure Marxist fantasy - a fungible pink slime of humanity under the heel of a totalitarian cabal.

The reality is that outliers are outliers, and have historically been dealt with on a case by case basis, as they should be. 


















Indignities Heaped on Massachusetts's Editor from Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper  (New York, N.Y.) 1861.
The left would have us believe that it is wrong for communities to set community standards, but remote, faceless bureaucracies should force universal obedience to empirical falsehoods. Their "philosophy" is too moronic to be just stupidity. Willful evil, even if just the bitter malicious resentment of the perennial loser or the sadism of the psychopath, is necessary for leftism to thrive. Moronic? Evil? Try both.


So "nation" is a blurry concept, which has no bearing on its reality - sorry deconstructionists. It's actually worth taking a moment to think about the nature of people who pedantically fixate on irrelevant details in a broad theoretical discussion. Some of this is just sperging - someone with knowledge in an area of keen interest who can't restrain themselves. But derailing broad questions with anecdotal concerns is a typical leftist ploy, because identifying "marginalized" victims or sensationalizing statistically irrelevant crimes are preludes to demanding more state intervention. These pedants tend to fall into two camps:



Those too intellectually limited to grasp the broader framework, but too simple or arrogant to admit it...
















...and deceivers who have no counter-argument for the larger conclusions, but oppose them ideologically and try and derail with tangents and red herrings.














Just to be clear, this is not a criticism of granular analysis. Precision is as important as scope, as far as history is concerned. But conversations have to set a range or distance from their subject - broad survey or detailed analysis - which determines how they are conducted. There is too much stuff for a universal history of everything. Something like setting a working definition of nation has to take a broad view, and engaging in this implies the ability or willingness to participate in good faith. 

This might be easier to visualize with an analogy. This isn't perfect - a painting is the product of a single creative mind, while a national culture evolves organically over time. But if we stick to the present tense and think of the painting and the broadly defined nation as existent facts, then the parallel is really good.



Pierre-Auguste Renoir, By the Water or Near the Lake, circa 1880, oil on canvas,  46.2 x 55.4 cm, Art Institute of Chicago

Renoir was a French Impressionist painter known for bright pleasant scenes. 










But look closely at this detail of the hat. It is just a mess of brush strokes that don't look anything like part of a hat. In fact, there is no obvious resemblance between any of these individual blobs of paint and the overall picture. This is similar to the relation between an individual and a nation. No definition of the nation will fit everyone perfectly. 

But fixating on outliers is as stupid as assessing this painting by fixating on one brush stroke.








So, "a large group or collective of people with common characteristics attributed to them - including language, traditions, mores, habits, and ethnicity" will do for nation. By any account, it is an organic formation based on commonalities that develop over time. Ethnic kinship is not the only factor, but it is an important one, and cannot be waved away in the name of Enlightenment delusion. 



Barberini Diptychearly 6th century, ivory, 34.2 x 26.8 x 2.8 cm, Louvre Museum

This carved ivory shows a Justinian or another early Byzantine emperor surging to victory with Christ's blessing. The figures on the bottom represent conquered nations paying tribute. The anti-nationalist nature of empire is obvious. 









Empires begin with national groups imposing their will over their neighbors. Once this happens, we have crossed into logical incoherence, since subjugating nations for "nationalist" reasons is intellectually self-contradictory. But empire building has proven irresistible to ascendant nations as a source of resources and a release for demographic pressure. 



Cesare Maccari, Cicero Denounces Catiline, 1889, fresco, 400 x 900 cm, Palazzo Madama, Rome

Historically, so-called Imperial values are generally projections of the dominant culture masquerading as a new collective identity. Conquered peoples go along to get along, but they don't change ethnos.





But an empire is made up peoples that don't belong to the imperial nation. 



See the World and get paid for doing It, 1920, British Army recruitment poster

Little did they realize that if you added a few rain clouds, you'd have contemporary London





This leads to three possibilities, all of which are doomed. 










1. Try and forge one new nation. 

This is the fake patriotism approach and has proven not to work. The ethno-cultural aspects of nationhood are too deeply rooted to be replaced with some other people's instinctual preferences. 



K.C. Byrde, Empire of the Sun1920


Arthur Wardle, The Empire Needs Men!, 1915, World War I recruiting poster

If there is one thing empires need, it's cannon fodder. 

Keep in mind that these symbols of  "Great Britain" were a fake patriotism first imposed on the nations of the British isles. 



















Our Allies the Colonies, Royal West African Fontier Force poster from the Second World War

How much less compelling are they for alien nations of the colonies?

Neither Roman civic piety nor restless English empiricism were traits shared by the people that they conquered. There were individual exceptions (outliers) but they were not numerous enough to shift the general pattern. Modern American civic nationalism and one world globalism are current failing examples of this same pipe dream.











Since this is impossible, inter-national conflict within the empire becomes inevitable, since some sets of national characteristics are better correlated with success than others. 


2. Try and keep a two-tier "citizenship"

This model seems to have been invented by the Persians and was used by the Romans as well. It maintains a distinction between the ruling nation and everyone else by setting up or maintaining local governance under imperial oversight. The advantage is that life went on more or less unchanged for most people. Leaders were local, and since ineffective ones could be removed, tended to favor social peace. 



Munkácsy Mihály, Christ before Pilate, 1881, oil on canvas, 417 x 636 cm, Déri Museum, Debrecen

The trial of Jesus was shaped by this system of governance. Pilate is a representative of imperial Roman law, while the Pharisees were authorities in the Jewish community. Pilate's willingness to accede to their wishes is an example of how the empire accommodated local leaders to maintain social peace.






But the disadvantages are crippling. There is no enculturation. Empire brings change, but on a superficial level. Things like tweaking the law code, changing tax structure, building new infrastructure, or more choices at the market that don't effect people on the level of identity. Resentment becomes inevitable when nations are forced to bear the costs of empire without having a seat at the ruling table. At this point, there are two outcomes:

A. The empire fragments once the ruling nation can no longer suppress rebellion by force. There is a return to nations, but it's messy.



For example, Europe broke into kingdoms based on tribal identity after the fall of the Roman Empire.
















B. Full citizenship is expanded to all. This was the Roman plan, and we just saw how that worked out. It would seem to be the globalist one as well, although globalism is more Postmodern, in that it doesn't originate in a founding nation as much as a transnational aristocratic class. That's a thought for later.



Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi (designer), Gustave Eiffel (builder), dedicated 1886, New York City; bronze plaque with Emma Lazarus' The New Colossus added 1903.

Read this screed literally. It is an assault on the posterity and legacy of the American people. What nation could possibly be built out of the world's least effective people?

Better question - what people would propose it?






















The problem is obvious. We are right back to 1. Try and forge one new nation. Dacians aren't Roman and they never will be. Indians aren't English and they never will be. Even pretending the opposite requires fake "patriotic" idols that no one except the Imperial nation and a handful of outliers feel anything for. We also know what happens to those idols once the imperial nation no longer has power.



Leslie Illingworth, Free India, May 20, 1947

Imperialism involves more than governments. As trade and finance became increasingly global, various economic interests complicate things. 

Empires are the kind of big authoritarian structures that allow important stakeholders to do enormous damage. 



Hard to believe, but taking Enlightenment fictions about blank slates progressing to equality global doesn't make them any more true.

C. Try and set up a federation. This fails for the same reasons of national self-interest and uneven trait distribution. It is inherent to any federation that the system either artificially limits the weight of the larger partners or subjugates the smaller ones. "Checks and balances" are irrelevant. 



Mort Künstler, The Last Rally, Sayler's Creek, Virginia April 6, 1865

The US Civil war brought an end to the constitutional fiction that states could leave the federal imperium by choice. When largely immigrant Northern armies suppressed the right of southern Americans to self-governance and free association, America had become an empire in all but name.



Resentments are inevitable in any imperial system, and these are made worse by exposure. Empires force incompatible peoples into shared structures. The same connectivity that expands trade and supports infrastructure brings different populations into sustained contact, where differences and disagreements become more pronounced.



A.H. Zaki, The Modern Civilization of Europe, circa 1908-14, lithograph

Bangladeshi Muslims burn a U.S. flag during a protest on Sept. 13, 2012

It is much easier to ignore someone when you aren't forced into violent contact.















In the case of the British Empire, Enlightenment delusion and good old greed joined forces to bulldoze what was left of the historic English nation. Opening the doors to the "Commonwealth", the EU, and Islam are the layers of salt on the earth. Can it be resurrected? The English people can reassert themselves, but with new, organic expressions of their national identity, not by living in a past that was largely fabricated. But consider the layers of stupidity and malevolence needed to promote ideas like "the White Man's burden" - that stone age peoples are blank slates, and it is the moral imperative of exploitative colonial overlords to transform them into enlightened universalists. The actual moral imperative is defend your nation's borders and interests, and expect others to do the same, as it ever was. 



Dip Chand, Portrait of an East India Company Officialcirca 1760-64, watercolor, 26.2 x 22.6 cm, Victoria and Albert Museum, London

The reality was that the British Empire was driven by elite greed. The entity known as the British East India Company was a fine precursor to the unaccountable globalist multinationals of today. 

The fact that the company ruled India for a century before being absorbed into the Imperial government shows us that the fake left/right, public/private distinction is a long-running canard. 


















This was the era of the nation-state, a bizarre attempt to centralize the administration of national groups with monarchical and/or bureaucratic structures. 



Paul Hadol, Comic map of Europe, lithograph, Paris: Vallee, 1870.


Strong nation-states, described as "Great Powers" competed for European dominance in an endless series of conflicts and wars, all sides generously funded by elite financiers, that reached an apotheosis in the World Wars of the twentieth century. 







There is nothing inherently wrong with this, except for the problem that happens any time two totally unrelated things are forced together - the arbitrary decision to combine them can easily be misrepresented as natural. The nation-state takes something man-made and subjective - the government - and pretends that it is part of something that evolved organically - the nation. This is utterly false, but does benefit rulership.



John Bernard Partridge, Only William's Wayfrom Punch, 1905

A cartoon on the Triple Entente, one of the webs of "Great Power" alliances that led to the horrors of the World Wars. 

Speaking of elite disdain for life...
















This isn't limited to early Modern European leaders and financiers. It is an inevitable consequence of large, class-divided, hierarchical authoritarian structures that the political and economic elites don't just detach from national concerns, they view them with hostility and disdain. This is how so much devastation can be unleashed with so little concern. 



The more things change...






















  
Of course these same leaders were so very enlightened and progressive that there is a name for it.



Adolph von Menze, King Frederick II Round Table in Sanssouci, 1849-50, destroyed 1945

Along 
with the king and some of his generals, the party included Enlightenment personalities like French philosophers Voltaire, Jean-Baptiste Boyer d'Argens, and Julien Offray de La Mettrie, and Italians Cassanova and philosopher and critic Francesco Algarotti. 

It is important to be steeped in murderous fake egalitarianism when harvesting your people in great games.










Stupid people call it being "woke". 

But we digress.












This is the geopolitical context for the age of colonial empire building. Although relatively small, European states possessed advantages in technology and organization that let them claim huge overseas empires. Spain and Portugal were pioneers in this regard, but England and France got in the game soon after. 



European empires circa 1754. England's empire was relatively modest and mainly centered in North America at that time. Outposts in Africa and India were links in a developing global trading network.














British North America didn't have the populous civilizations and lootable gold that the Spanish and Portuguese empires did, but the territories were were rich in other resources. 



John Hull, James Forte at Jamestown, Plan of Jamestown, 1607


After a few false starts, the English were able to make a colony stick at Jamestown. The colony was driven by financial interests, which contributed greatly to the disastrous early planning. 








Charles William Jefferys, Champlain superintending the building of his habitation, 16081925, watercolor and crayon on tablet, 38 x 25.8 cm, Library and Archives Canada, Ottawa

This was right around the same time that New France was being established. 


















The fortress of Quebec exchanges cannon fire with the British fleet during the War of Quebec in 1690.

The outcome was predictable. The English and French fight over waterways, the fur trade, and other resources for almost a century and a half before England completely conquers New France.






By the mid-eighteenth century, it was clear that England was becoming a significant imperial power, and imperial pretensions needed imperial buildings. The Palladianism of Burlington and Kent was augmented and expanded to a grander scale.











John Vardy after a design by William Kent, Horse Guards, 1751-53, London


Due to the tumultuous history and relatively weak monarchy, England didn't develop the same tradition of grand official architecture that we find in France or Spain. The Imperial eighteenth century saw that begin to change.

The Palladian substructure is still apparent in the simple massing of the building, but there is a lot more decorative detail. It is also much larger than the Palladian building we saw in the earlier post.

A close-up shows a Palladian window in the center with triangular pedimented windows on the sides and a balustrade on the flat roofline. These are typical ,features in Palladian buildings. 


The massive feel of the stonework, especially the rusticated arch, is more reflective of the imperial aspirations of the British state.









John Vardy, Spencer House, 1752-54, London

The Earl Spencer's show house designed by Kent's prominent student. That's the Burlington chain of influence. 

The same grandly imperial Palladianism that we saw at Horse Guards if present here. That's also the same Spencer family that gave us Princess Diana. 


Thomas Malton the Younger, East India House, circa 1800, watercolor over etched outline, 21.6 cm x 30.3 cm, Yale Center for British Art, New Haven


Hry, that's the corporate elite's music! But it's the same grand Palladianism.

The East India Company headquarters was rebuilt in the late 1720s, expanded in the late 1790's, and demolished in 1861.




Well that's interesting. Government, aristocracy, and the corporate elites shared the exact same architectural symbolism. Coincidence? 

Remember that architectural symbolism was meaningful enough that Louis XIV had rejected the fluid Baroque designs of Bernini as too Italian, opting instead for a more restrained  version that became associated with French kingship. Burlington opted for a an even more restrained Palladianism as a symbolic alternative to the more continental Baroque of Wren.






















Most Popular Posts