A question - Recovering the souls of the European peoples (ritual, moral)

[Elvendon]

Something I've been thinking about today.

The past year or so, there have been a spate of programmes on British television about the Classical Period - Ancient Rome and the "Barbarian" peoples they conquered. Two in particular interested me - one, hosted by local MP Boris Johnson, compared Rome to the modern European Union and how the two share similar lofty ideals, operate in similar ways and have similar requirements to survive. The other, hosted by the ever entertaining Terry Jones, described how the Barbarians the Romans so reviled and were constantly fighting were in fact equally or more civilised than Rome (at least in the modern view) and were simply the victims of a highly sophisticated and highly successful smear campaign - operated by the Romans to give their campaigns a moral basis when in fact they had none. The non-Latin peoples of Europe never had the opportunity to defend their reputations because not only were they all illiterate (or left no preserved writings) and furthermore because their descendents were Romanised (in the case of the Celts) or were completely obliterated (in the case of the Dacians.)

The first programme made me realise that almost every sizeable European organisation, from the Napoleonic Empire to the Roman Catholic Church has been attempting to either replace or emulate Ancient Rome. The simple fact is, that Europeans became utterly addicted to the idea of Rome. Those areas that the Romans conquered became so deeply Romanised that the loss of Rome seriously traumatised their racial consciousness. For centuries, tribes, nations and peoples throughout Europe had become utterly dependent upon Rome for their coorporate, commercial, economic and social unity - the end of Empire deprived the people of all this - causing a deep scar to be made in the identity of peoples from Portugal to Turkey. Those areas still free of Roman control still viewed Rome as a kind of peacefull, prosperous and united promised land that they all wanted to be a part of. In fact - the two groups people most associate with the fall of the western Roman Empire; the Huns and the Goths, were in fact peoples that wanted to join the Empire, but it's current inhabitants didn't want to let them in. The loss of this utopia in the west has never really healed in the European consciousness - we have always been chasing the ghosts of Rome.

The second programme made me realise something else - the fact that although the European peoples all long for the return of Rome and it's true heir - the fact is that our origins, even of the Italic peoples, are from a thoroughly non-Roman mode of living. Before the Romans decided that conquest might be a nice way to spend their long summers - Europe was in fact spanned by a complex and well regulated trading network between different autonomous peoples. Greek Wine ended up in Celtic burials, Baltic amber in Carthaginian jewelry. Each of the societies that Rome eventually replaced were already dominated by highly complex legal and governmental systems - the Celts in particular had a sophisticated and well trained educated class (the Druids) that kept their society running smoothly. In fact, the shape modern Europe has taken has much in common with our pagan history - with educated individuals in positions of power in society and sovereign powers cooperating significantly in trade. However, it also bears all the hallmarks of our Roman history and our withdrawl from Empire.

The problem is that Rome itself is not a positive role model and our withdrawl from it is even more destructive. Rome was an aggressive, expansionist power which was organised around one figure - the emperor. The Empire supported Rome, Rome supported the imperial household and the imperial household supported the emperor. Rome depended upon slavery to operate - and on a massive scale. Without frequent wars to capture large volumes of slaves to run the Roman economy, Rome fell apart. Not only this, but Rome encouraged savage and utterly unpleasant sports and lifestyles that victimised innocent people. Furthermore, Rome fostered a sense of Romans VS the Barbarians - Us VS Them - if you're not in, you're wrong and less of a person. A racist and intolerant worldview which has been the most persistent of their negative legacies. What has made all this worse from my perspective, is that many aspects of Rome, especially it's religio-political side, have remained in my faith and prevented it from truly following it's mystic, ethical heart.

Though Rome was thoroughly unpleasant when compared to our modern ethics - it was very marketable. Rome impressed people - by providing an image of the clean shaven, sweet-smelling, articulate Roman to the slightly more rough around the edges peoples of Europe. When you combine the clarity with which Rome showed off it's "civilisation" and wealth with it's military might and powerful cultic draw, the Roman product became a must-have item.

Precisely this must have quality of Rome made it decidedly difficult to live without. The Celts especially suffered mass loss of coorporate identity with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire - with practically their entire cultural sphere being colonised and replaced with Frankish and Germanic tribespeoples. Throughout history, people from Europe have tried to recapture the Roman way of life, through conquest (such as the Nazis, Spanish, British and Holy Roman Empires), through culture (see the Rennaissance and proliferation of classical architecture in important European buildings), through economy (the EU) or through outlook. However, Rome was build on the bones of innocents, and besides, the world changed when Rome fell - the Empire was highly specialised to it's particular historical environment and so, thank God, can never ever rise again - as the failure of all it's "true successors" has shown.

What does all this mean therefore? What it means is that the peoples of Europe have for over 2000 years been chasing a dream and emulating an ideal that is, in fact, not theirs. In addition to this, this ideal is both unpleasant and cruel and is directly responsible for almost all the greatest atrocities perpetrated by ourselves against other ethnic groups. From the conquest of the Americas, to the Slave trade, footsteps of blood can be traced back to the gates of the Roman Senate. Finally, by constantly lamenting the fall of Rome, looking for it's return or searching for it elsewhere, we Europeans have lost sight of our true coorporate soul - our ancestral culture that dates back to before the mists of time fell. We as a people (though not individually) have a tendancy to chase dreams that are folly, at the expense of true happiness.

It is my belief that it is time we gave up our long search - our hope for the return of Empire. It's now we need to look back, to our first ancestors, and to see and to know what they knew. So, as a Christian Anglo-Briton - I ask those of you with expertise in their ethnic spirit - particularly those of you of non-White backgrounds - I come before you cap in hand - How do we find ourselves again?

[Djamila]

It's much more complicated than this. There are many desires for Empire, but they span various different peoples and are often contradict each other.

For example, there are the desires of the Vatican to revive Roman Catholicism in Europe and unite the Roman Catholic countries, one of the largest and most populous of which is Spain. Spain, on the other hand, is largely committed to secularism and supportive of the idea of the European Union.

You have the Balkans desires for pan-Islamic or pan-Orthodox Christian unions. These are in direct competition with each other for territory. Above this you have the desire to pan-South Slavic union, which has already manifested itself a communist form - Yugoslavia (Yugo, from Jugo - meaning South. And Slavia means Slavs. Literally, land of the South Slavs).

You have the Nordic countries, the Germanic states (Germany, Austria, north Switzerland, etc.), the Turkic countries like Hungary (a lot of people don't realize Hungarians are largely ethnically Turkish), the Romance countries like Romania and Moldova.

None of these Empires are more likely than the European Union. But I wouldn't say they have the desires of Rome. Rome desired to make everyone Roman, and destroy those they couldn't. The European Union doesn't aim to make everyone Belgian. The main objectives are democracy and rule of law, with a strong secular streak.

[Elvendon]

Originally Posted by Djamila

It's much more complicated than this. There are many desires for Empire, but they span various different peoples and are often contradict each other.

For example, there are the desires of the Vatican to revive Roman Catholicism in Europe and unite the Roman Catholic countries, one of the largest and most populous of which is Spain. Spain, on the other hand, is largely committed to secularism and supportive of the idea of the European Union.

You have the Balkans desires for pan-Islamic or pan-Orthodox Christian unions. These are in direct competition with each other for territory. Above this you have the desire to pan-South Slavic union, which has already manifested itself a communist form - Yugoslavia (Yugo, from Jugo - meaning South. And Slavia means Slavs. Literally, land of the South Slavs).

You have the Nordic countries, the Germanic states (Germany, Austria, north Switzerland, etc.), the Turkic countries like Hungary (a lot of people don't realize Hungarians are largely ethnically Turkish), the Romance countries like Romania and Moldova.

None of these Empires are more likely than the European Union. But I wouldn't say they have the desires of Rome. Rome desired to make everyone Roman, and destroy those they couldn't. The European Union doesn't aim to make everyone Belgian. The main objectives are democracy and rule of law, with a strong secular streak.

You're right, of course. I would not say that Rome is the sole motivator, but it is the most important one. Furthermore - just because an empire doesn't have Rome at the heart of it doesn't mean it isn't attempting to emulate the Roman ideal. In the cases that you've presented, it's more a case of people attempting to create a large state that had all the benefits of Rome - peace, prosperity and plenty. But as you can see, they just don't work. Europe has moved on since then. I would say that the EU (as a trading body) is a good idea, because it's closer to how Europe used to work before the Romans invaded. However - any attempt at political, spiritual, national, linguistic unification and centralisation is doomed to failure.

It's high time we stopped thinking big unified powers are the answer and start making our own way.

[kai]

rome wasnt the first european empire and rome emulated and admired the greeks and your right the barbarians weren't as bestial as the roman historians made out . of course all empires in history have basically been held together by the armies of each i think the eu will never achieve the integration some of their members dream of . and some of us have always looked back before rome to see our roots in the past

[Elvendon]

Originally Posted by kai

rome wasnt the first european empire and rome emulated and admired the greeks and your right the barbarians weren't as bestial as the roman historians made out . of course all empires in history have basically been held together by the armies of each i think the eu will never achieve the integration some of their members dream of . and some of us have always looked back before rome to see our roots in the past

You're right, of course. Rome wasn't the first Empire... not by a long shot. But the point is that it was the first truly ideological empire, or at least the one that people still seem to emulate - an emulation that is as dangerous and destructive as it is impossible.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Elvendon

However - any attempt at political, spiritual, national, linguistic unification and centralisation is doomed to failure.

It's high time we stopped thinking big unified powers are the answer and start making our own way.

I agree a centralized model is neither workable nor desirable.

But how about an attempt at political and spiritual unification that actively rejects centralization, and a linguistic unification that preserves our diverse languages, but merely adds a secondary language that everyone knows?

[Elvendon]

Originally Posted by Booko

I agree a centralized model is neither workable nor desirable.

But how about an attempt at political and spiritual unification that actively rejects centralization, and a linguistic unification that preserves our diverse languages, but merely adds a secondary language that everyone knows?

I agree that these ideals are... well, ideal, but I just am unsure as to whether they have a chance at working.

If there is one language all people know, there is less of an incentive to use others.

As for the others, I'm not too sure how something can be united without be centralised - perhaps you could provide and example?

[Terrywoodenpic]

Originally Posted by Elvendon

It's high time we stopped thinking big unified powers are the answer and start making our own way.

Are you suggesting the US, China,india, would be better broken into their component parts: just as Russia was.

Or are you just limiting your observation to Europe.

The two great wars and struggles and open wars in many parts of the world, have been caused by power struggles that had their base in world conquests and nation prestige in europe.

In my view the closer European countries can link and become dependent on each other the better for the world.

[Elvendon]

Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic

Are you suggesting the US, China,india, would be better broken into their component parts: just as Russia was.

Or are you just limiting your observation to Europe.

]

I thought the title might give you a hint - but yes, it is only directed at Europe.

The two great wars and struggles and open wars in many parts of the world, have been caused by power struggles that had their base in world conquests and nation prestige in europe.

In my view the closer European countries can link and become dependent on each other the better for the world.

The problem is that Europe is really diverse culturally. The whole way of life in Italy, say, is entirely different to the way of life in the UK. It makes no sense for such radically different societies to be brought under the same leadership - not when historically such efforts have been proven to be fruitless.