Nicholas & Helena Roerich: The Spiritual Journey of Two Great Artists & Peacemakers

By Ruth Drayer

Ex: https://www.newdawnmagazine.com

 

Nicholas & Helena Roerich

This article was published in New Dawn 99 (Nov-Dec 2006)

Visionaries, luminaries, and spiritual pioneers Nicholas and Helena Roerich were two of Russia’s most outstanding people. High initiates, they devoted their lives to helping the advancement of humanity. And as is often the way with many great spiritual leaders, their path was liberally strewn with hardship and adversity: revolutions, captivity, spy charges, deception and deceit; testing the Roerichs constantly on their shared belief that it was these very obstacles that would allow them to grow. 

Yet, despite the fact that the couple were once barred from entering the United States and their teachings prevented from circulating freely throughout Russia, the Roerichs’ ideas are today reaching an ever-expanding group of people around the world.  

Perhaps it is an attempt to bring balance and harmony to our world of unrest, pain and strife that is causing the massive desire to know more of Nicholas, the painter and mystic, and his wife Helena, the co-author of the Agni Yoga series of metaphysics and deep spirituality.  

Internationally acclaimed artist, author, explorer, archaeologist, humanitarian, conservationist and peacemaker Nicholas Konstantinovich Roerich (1847–1947) was born in St. Petersburg, Russia. He met his beloved wife and life partner Helena Ivanovna (1879–1955) on his way to excavate in the eastern part of Russia, and they married in 1901. 

She was a gifted musician and healer who had been studying the ancient spiritual writings of India and the East for years; in time, she became an inspired writer and teacher. He eagerly shared her pursuits for wisdom and knowledge. Together, they explored the teachings of Rama Krishna, the Buddha and also studied Madame Helena Blavatsky’s writings and philosophies. Once safely out of Russia and the civil war that raged following the 1917 Russian Revolution, they used their time in exile to test and experiment with the Theosophical teachings. It was at this time that they met Master Morya, their spiritual teacher. Since her childhood, the Masters (members of the Brotherhood of Light) had been working with Helena in her dream world but now the work took an additional form as page after page of expansive, astonishing information was dictated to them. 

After leaving Russia, the Roerichs and their two sons had first gone to Scandinavia, then made their way to England, eventually arriving on the shores of America. But the United States was not their ultimate destination. Their actual goal was India. For some years after 1917, India – the Raj – was closely maintained by the British who were constantly on guard against infiltration by Russian Bolsheviks bringing their inflammatory thoughts of revolution. The Roerichs were clearly on the list of those not wanted. In time, the way did open for them to enter India and although they never knew it, they were continually kept under surveillance. This fact accounts for many of their hardships.

The Roerich family arrived in New York City in the fall of 1920. Within the next three years they had gathered about them a little circle of the perfect people to accomplish all of their goals: the formation of an idealistic artist’s society called Cor Ardens, to encourage artists to push themselves to greater heights of artistic ability; the Master School of United Arts where all of the arts where taught under one roof and students were encouraged to express themselves in various media – thereby giving them the opportunity to become more rounded individuals. And Corona Mundi, an international art museum, founded to display artistic treasures from Central Asia and other areas of the world. Roerich’s paintings were exhibited in 26 US states and he and Helena toured much of the country – meeting and exchanging ideas with the most open-minded, progressive people in the arts and humanities.

Central Asian Expeditions

In 1924, they left New York for Europe which was the last stop before going to India and beginning their four-year Central Asian expedition. The history of Central Asia of the late 1800s and early 1900s is sprinkled with daunting accounts of fearless explorers and adventurers; men and women such as Helena Blavatsky, Alexandra David-Neel, Sir Aurel Stein, Sven Hedin, and Russian born Col. Nikolai Przhevalsky, who discovered a breed of horse that was named in his honour. But none of those were artists and to the best of my knowledge, none were on a mission to Shambhala. The couple were both past fifty years old when they undertook the gruelling journey to traverse Central Asia for four years on foot, camel, horse and yak enduring the brutal heat of the lowest desert elevations and laboring over the highest mountains ranges on the planet. 

What is it that stirs people to leave the comfort of their home and set off for the unknown? Gold? Religious freedom? The quest for a better life? For the Roerichs, the reasons were many. Nicholas was interested in proving the migration routes of the early tribes that encircled the globe. He wanted to be the first Westerner to paint and document the vast mountain ranges of India, Tibet and Central Asia and search for and uncover treasures long-hidden by the desert sands. 

Through fourteen years of researching, thinking and writing about the Roerichs, I could not help but question the real purpose of the Roerichs’ Central Asian expedition. Unbeknownst to me, a Russian scholar by the name of Vladimir Rosov, was quietly helping. Just as I had began my work by living a short time in India and meeting with Svetoslav Roerich, reading through Madame Roerich’s journals and some personal correspondence, searching through the files kept in the Library of Congress and the Freedom of Information Act; researching old micro-fiche, newspapers, and the British Secret Files for facts regarding the Roerichs’ years in America, Rosov had been studying and sifting through all the Roerich documents which had been unavailable to researchers before Gorbachev’s Perestroika restructured the country. The results of his work can be read (in Russian) in his two volumes, whose name in English translates to Nicholas Roerich, The Messenger of Zvenigorod. 

In the first volume, he relates a startling story which answered all my questions and astonished the world of Roerich followers. Since it was already in print, I was able to use it, thereby becoming the first person to tell (in English) the real story of the Roerichs’ four-year expedition. Rosov’s account also provided a new basis for understanding the Roerich’s second trip – during which the United States sent Roerich and his son George, back to Central Asia in search of drought resistant grasses to help prevent a reoccurrence of the disastrous “dust bowl” of 1934. It was this expedition which broke Roerichs’ friendship with Henry A. Wallace, US Secretary of Agriculture during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration, and led to Roerich being barred from returning to the United States.

Shambhala

For years various authors have written about Shambhala. Though many people are familiar with the term, a far greater number of people have no idea what it refers to. Those “in the know” think that the search for Shambhala was the purpose of the Roerichs’ four year expedition. And they are both right – and wrong. 

Shambhala is a Sanskrit word meaning “place of peace, tranquillity and happiness.” It is considered a mystical place – both visible and invisible – where the higher world connects with the realm of Earth. The earliest references to Shambhala are found in the more than three hundred volumes of Kanjur and Tangyur, the most sacred books of Tibetan Buddhism. The books say it is a hidden kingdom, located somewhere north of Bodh Gaya, the Buddhist shrine in northern India. Shambhala is thought to be an oasis, completely ringed by high, snowy mountains that glisten with ice. Some lamas were said to hold the opinion that it has peaks which are perpetually hidden in the mists, while others believe it is visible but too remote for anyone to get close enough to see. And then there are the stories of people who tried to find Shambhala and were never seen nor heard of again.

Many Tibetans were said to regard Shambhala as a heaven of the gods or a special paradise, meant only for those on their way to Nirvana. Possibly the Roerichs first heard the term while reading one of Madame Blavatsky’s books on Theosophy or if not then, it might have been in 1912 when a famous Buddhist lama was in St. Petersburg helping with the construction of a Buddhist temple. However, when the lama spoke of it, he was not speaking of a destination; he was speaking of a famous Buddhist prophecy.

The prophecy involved the Panchen Lama, who held a position the Dalai Lama had created several hundred years earlier in order to share the leadership of Tibet. The Dalai Lama was the temporal leader of the country and the Panchen Lama was the spiritual leader. The prophecy predicted that one day the Panchen Lama would leave Tibet. Once this happened, a great army would arise to destroy the forces of evil and usher in a golden age, a thousand years of peace and harmony. In order for that to occur, however, the Panchen Lama would have to die. When he was reborn, he would be named Rigden Jypo and be the Maitreya, The Coming One, the king of Shambhala, the abode of the mystical Buddhist learning and the symbol of the Great Future. Shambhala was the guiding principle of the coming Kalpa, or cosmic age, and at the sound of that powerful name, certainly something awoke in the Roerichs’ hearts as it does in the hearts of all people who yearn for peace.

However, when the Roerichs’ spiritual teacher, Master Morya, spoke of Shambhala, he gave the name an additional meaning for it was how he referred to the new country that he wanted the Roerichs to create. Morya envisioned a new Buddhist spiritual country to be established on the borders of Mongolia, the Gobi and Siberia. This country was to be governed jointly by the Panchen Lama and Roerich. 

Therefore, the two major purposes for the expedition – which were kept private and confidential – were so that the Roerichs could prepare the ground for the new country and the commerce necessary for it to be financially sound; and to find the Panchen Lama so that they could parlay with him, present this startling (and naive) idea, and convince him it was possible and viable. Considering, however, that all of the land involved was already occupied and within the boundaries and domain of other governments, the fulfilment of this plan was highly improbable. One country attempting to take land from another is what wars have been fought about throughout time. When the first expedition was aborted after the Tibetans (and British) kept the Roerich Central Asian expedition freezing in captivity for four months on the border of Tibet and then sent them straight back to India, it looked as if all plans were foiled.

Then, Henry A. Wallace offered Roerich a second chance and sent him back to Central Asia. But, with China and Japan on the brink of war, it was a very dangerous and volatile time. This trip Helena Roerich stayed behind and Nicholas, an artist – not a diplomat, blundered about until Wallace ordered him to return to India and stay there – and not leave again.¹ Years later, looking back on the entire event, Madame Roerich wrote in her journal that both the Panchen Lama and her husband were too old at the time to accomplish this feat. Perhaps the Roerichs were laying down the lines of light necessary for it to become a reality in the future.

Considering that during the entire four year expedition Roerich’s travel plans were continually thwarted by visa and passport difficulties, it is surprising that Nicholas and Helena even attempted to accomplish the establishment of a new country. To me it seems a demonstration of their loyalty and dedication to work with their teacher. 

Art, Beauty and Unity

Roerich loved the concept of unity. He believed that “beauty is the force that can bring nations together.” He hated borders and boundaries and thought that since all the people of the world belonged to one family, they should be able to roam and travel freely throughout it. 

Nicholas and Helena Roerich had very expanded consciousnesses. They believed “that knowledge and beauty are the real cornerstones of evolution, the gates to a world community.” They taught that a synthesis of knowledge from all fields of human endeavours was needed to form a fully developed being. Nicholas wrote nearly thirty books and created over 7,000 paintings and theatre designs depicting scenes from ancient Slavic myths, the Himalayan Mountains, and spiritual themes from the world’s religions. 

People who see his art for the first time are often speechless at the inspirational use of colour and the spiritual power it evokes – especially his later work, completed during and after the four years of expedition. Roerich’s paintings portray spiritual development, culture and its role in human evolution and possibilities for peace in a troubled world. A broader and more metaphysical understanding is added to the paintings once the viewer penetrates Helena’s deeply spiritual writings. In addition to the Agni Yoga series, which she wrote in conjunction with Master Morya, she wrote On Eastern Crossroads under the name of Josephine Saint-Hilaire. 

Daring explorers, the couple investigated the remote and dangerous regions of China, Mongolia and the Gobi Desert where few Westerners had previous ventured. They were seeking ancient manuscripts hidden in subterranean crypts and caves, the treasures to be found in burial mounds, and the wealth of statues, artifacts and wall paintings left behind in caves by the artistic Buddhists. 

In 1929 Nicholas Roerich was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in creating the Banner of Peace and the Roerich Peace Pact, designed to preserve the world’s treasures from being destroyed in time of war. Franklin Roosevelt and twenty-six world leaders met in Washington, D.C. to ratify the agreement. The Roerichs were friends and advisors to heads of state, scientists, artists, writers and poets. Roerich’s work won praise from Albert Einstein, Leo Tolstoy, George Bernard Shaw, Jawaharlal Nehru, Rabindranath Tagore, and many others. 

Madonna Oriflamma, the original Roerich painting where the Banner of Peace flag appears for the first time (courtesy Nicholas Roerich Museum, New York)

Now, over fifty years later, many of their key ideas have found a place in the human soul: the equality of the feminine and the masculine principles, the wisdom of the heart and the striving for the common good and brotherhood. The eternal truths the Roerichs demonstrated on Earth are echoing through time, awakening humanity to beauty and unity. “Beneath the sign of beauty we will walk joyfully,” wrote Nicholas Roerich. “With beauty we conquer. Through beauty we pray. In beauty we are united.”

To the Roerichs, culture was the highest expression of the Light – the “cult” of Ur (Light). They considered that beauty and art speak an international language understood by all and that focusing on the beautiful in life would lead us to world peace. 

Nicholas Roerich wrote: 

If you shall be asked, of what kind of country and of what constitution you dream, you can answer in full dignity: the country of Great Culture. You shall know that in that country peace and knowledge and beauty will be revered…. You may say: life is hard. How can I think of knowledge and beauty if we have nothing to live on? Or: We are far away from knowledge and art; we have important business to attend to first. But I say: You are right, but you are wrong. Knowledge and art are not luxuries. Knowledge and art are not idleness. They are the prayer and work of the spirit. Men pray in the moments of great difficulty. So too, is this prayer of the spirit most needful, when one’s whole being is shaken and in want of support, and when it seeks a wise solution.

An arduous trial awaits the whole world: the trial by the assimilation of truth. After the medieval trials by fire, water and iron, now comes the trial by assimilation of truth. But if the power of the spirit upheld men against fire and iron, then will that same power not also raise them up the steps of knowledge and Beauty? 

Throughout the world, in Israel, India, Mexico, Germany and many other countries, schools, civic organisations, and ordinary citizens are flying the Banner of Peace, proclaiming Peace through Culture. Do you want to join in this effort? If each person who reads this article would take the time to research, create, and fly the Banner of Peace – a white flag with three magenta balls in the middle – over their home, place of business, he or she will be contributing to the cause of Peace. 

Let’s all do it now! Dedicate ourselves to the cause of peace and align ourselves with the hundreds and thousands of people around the world who are using Nicholas and Helena Roerichs’ legacy and memory for inspiration.

Please visit www.roerich.org to see Roerich’s wonderful paintings and learn more of this fascinating couple.

This article was published in New Dawn 99.

 

L’entreprise : être ou ne pas être un État souverain…

par Valérie Bugault

Ex: http://www.zejournal.mobi

Le chemin du droit de l’entreprise : de la perte de souveraineté de l’État à la dictature universelle.

Une récente manifestation médiatique arrive à point nommé pour illustrer la réalité politique de la question juridique de l’entreprise.

Le droit de l’entreprise est au cœur de la souveraineté des États car il est le lieu privilégié où s’affrontent les forces économiques globalistes menées par les banquiers et les forces politiques légitimistes menées par les États. N’en déplaise aux esprits faux, la traduction de la souveraineté est éminemment juridique, aussi il n’existe pas de souveraineté politique sans souveraineté juridique. Dit autrement, la souveraineté politique passe de façon essentielle par la souveraineté juridique. Derrière tous les faux semblants et les jérémiades des actuels dirigeants économiques, qui contrôlent en réalité l’État français, est un principe général : « Dieu se rit des hommes – et des États – qui déplorent les effets dont ils chérissent les causes. » On ne peut dans le même temps à la fois jouer le jeu globaliste de ses adversaires, tout de droit anglo-saxon vêtu, et déplorer son propre asservissement, c’est-à-dire son impuissance et sa domination !

Qu’en est-il de la souveraineté juridique française ? Sa disparition est parfaitement illustrée par l’évolution juridique du droit de l’entreprise. De ce point de vue, la France, comme la plupart des pays du monde, a abandonné son pouvoir régalien de régulation au profit de la mise en œuvre réglementaire illimitée du pouvoir de ses créanciers – les banquiers globalistes. Concrètement, la France a abandonné sa capacité a générer une économie politique autonome – comprendre « non contrôlée par les banquiers globalistes » – lorsqu’elle a refusé au Général De Gaulle la mise en œuvre juridique de la souveraineté économique, qui passait par un renouveau du droit de l’entreprise.

Alors que l’oligarchie compradore française faisait politiquement « tomber », en 1969, le chef de la France Libre, pour ne pas avoir à mettre en œuvre le principe général de « l’entreprise participative », je fus moi-même en 2005 – de longues décennies plus tard – bannie du système universitaire pour avoir eu l’audace de proposer une réforme de l’entreprise qui lutte contre l’anonymat et la prédation financière en réimposant la notion de contrôle économique, lequel passe par le rétablissement de frontières juridiques (1). Ma propre théorie juridique de l’entreprise avait pour objet d’éviter et même d’interdire la généralisation de l’immixtion dans la gestion des entreprises par les banquiers fournisseurs de crédit, immixtion déplorée dans l’article sur Goldman Sachs ci-dessus mentionné. Par ce choix de l’éviction des intrusions bancaires, ma théorie de l’entreprise reprenait les fondamentaux de « l’entreprise participative ». Or, il faut comprendre que quarante ans durant, tous les efforts politiques avaient été consciencieusement fait pour effacer toute trace juridique de l’entreprise participative dans les enseignements universitaires ! Sans revenir sur cet épisode épique de ma propre vie, il convient d’insister sur les tenants et les aboutissants d’une conception strictement financière de l’entreprise qui nous vient des pays anglo-saxons. Car, in fine, l’immixtion des banquiers dans la gestion des entreprises, qui se manifeste notamment par des actions sur le choix des dirigeants, a pour corollaire une prise de pouvoir des banquiers globalistes sur l’intégralité de la vie économique d’un pays.

Le pouvoir hégémonique des banquiers sur l’entreprise et sur l’économie des pays a été – sans surprise – véhiculé par le droit anglo-saxon.

Si le droit « anglo-saxon » a pris le contrôle politique du monde, aussi bien au niveau des institutions internationales qu’à celui des institutions nationales, c’est parce qu’il est conçu, depuis 1531, comme un instrument des puissants pour asservir les populations. Le « droit anglo-saxon » n’est pas à strictement parler du « droit », il est un moyen d’asservir les masses.

Depuis que les puissances d’argent ont pris, en occident, le contrôle du phénomène politique, le « droit anglo-saxon » a naturellement été utilisé par ces dernières car il est le plus adapté à leur entreprise de domination. Utile à la domination des puissants contre les humbles, le « droit anglo-saxon » repose sur deux piliers essentiels :

Premièrement, le prétendu « droit » anglo-saxon n’est pas du « droit » à strictement parler car il ne cherche à établir de façon générale ni « justice », ni « intégrité », ni « vérité », il cherche simplement à assurer la domination de quelques-uns sur la majorité ;

Deuxièmement, le prétendu « droit » anglo-saxon s’est construit, depuis le XVIème siècle, conformément au « positivisme juridique », c’est-à-dire en opposition au droit continental traditionnel qui véhiculait le principe opposé de « droit naturel ». Le positivisme juridique est la liberté d’établir, sans limite qualitative et quantitative, autant de règles qu’il est utile aux puissants de le faire. Ce positivisme s’est peu à peu techniquement imposé en France et en Europe continentale à la faveur de deux phénomènes : d’une part, matériellement, par le système du « Parlement représentatif » et d’autre part, théoriquement, par la « théorie pure du droit » d’Hans Kelsen.

Pour en revenir à l’entreprise, son évolution juridique a suivie, en France, celle de l’inversion du rapport de force entre banquiers globalistes et État politique : elle a validé, au fil du temps, la domination irrémédiable des entreprises par les quelques actionnaires actifs, majoritaires en terme relatif et la plupart du temps minoritaires en terme absolu, souvent réellement anonymes.

Cette prise de pouvoir actionnarial et financier sur l’entreprise s’est brutalement accélérée lors de la mise en œuvre en France et dans le monde de la théorie dite de l’Agence, laquelle a notamment – parmi beaucoup d’autres vilenies – justifié l’introduction en France des stock-options, transformant les dirigeants des grandes entreprises en serviteurs dociles des intérêts patrimoniaux dominants.

Faisant fi de la tradition française, conforme au droit continental, de l’entreprise, le législateur a fini par rejeter la conception institutionnelle de l’entreprise, pour désormais considérer cette dernière comme un « nœud gordien », un simple enchevêtrement contractuel, dans lequel les plus forts sont toujours les « meilleurs ». Dire que l’entreprise est une institution signifie que l’entreprise, en tant qu’institution juridique, a une fonction politique d’organisation sociale qui relève de l’intérêt commun ; dire que l’entreprise est le simple siège d’un nœud contractuel, a pour effet juridique de livrer cette dernière aux contractants les plus forts, lesquels sont les principaux propriétaires de capitaux.

C’est ainsi que fut bannie du paysage juridique français l’entreprise participative en 1969 et ma propre théorie de l’entreprise en 2005.

Les enjeux politiques de ces bannissements successifs sont les suivants : l’entreprise ne doit en aucun cas échapper aux dominants économiques pour bénéficier à la collectivité, elle doit rester sous le complète dépendance des fournisseurs de crédits, ces derniers ayant pour objectif avoué la prise de contrôle politique totale et l’établissement d’un gouvernement mondial.

J’ai longuement décrit (2) comment l’entreprise avait dégénéré – au niveau mondial – en concept congloméral et comment ces conglomérats étaient aujourd’hui considérés comme des institutions qui soumettaient les États ; ces derniers étant aujourd’hui internationalement ravalés au rang de simple acteur économique non dominant, c’est-à-dire soumis.

Or précisément, l’entreprise participative, tout comme ma propre théorie de l’entreprise, en tant qu’elles sont les héritières du droit continental traditionnel, permettraient de s’opposer à cette domination capitalistique mondiale. Malheureusement en France les instances décisionnaires, politiques, universitaires et juridiques (qu’elles soient ou non fonctionnaires), sont soumises à la domination des principaux détenteurs de capitaux ; elles ont, par esprit de cour ou par corruption avérée, renoncé à lutter.

Les dirigeants français de tout bord ont, depuis 1969, renoncé au principe de liberté, d’indépendance et de souveraineté, pour suivre la voie ignoble de l’asservissement et de la collaboration. Tant et si bien que nous assistons aujourd’hui à une nouvelle évolution du droit de l’entreprise qui, comme toujours, suit l’évolution des rapports de force entre « fait économique » et « fait politique ». Validant l’abjuration définitive du concept étatique, les « dirigeants politiques » français ont permis une nouvelle évolution de l’entreprise allant dans le sens, bien compris, de l’intérêt bancaire supérieur mais paré de vertus collectives que les banquiers ont faites leurs. Ainsi, conformément aux développements initiés par le Club de Rome, qui seront matérialisés plus tard par les Giorgia Guidestones, l’entreprise devient un enjeu « écologique ». L’entreprise est dès lors sommée de répondre aux défis environnementaux tels que compris par les puissances économiques dominantes, lesquelles ont parfaitement intégré l’insoutenabilité de leur domination par le jeu capitalistique dans un univers où les ressources naturelles sont limitées. Nous avons ainsi vu apparaître le RSE, ou Responsabilité Sociale de l’Entreprise, avant de voir la naissance, récente, de l’entreprise à mission (3). Conformément à la méthode des petits pas traditionnellement utilisée par la caste bancaire monopoliste, le fondement initial du « volontariat » s’atténue peu à peu pour bientôt se transformer en droit impératif, rigoureusement sanctionné. Nous avons ici, en matière d’évolution du droit de l’entreprise, la même méthodologie que celle appliquée à l’évolution du droit de propriété.

L’objectif ultime étant la disparition juridiquement validée de la liberté et de la démocratie, afin de laisser la place à la dictature bancaire universelle.

Derrière les faux semblants de la prise en compte de l’intérêt commun – intérêt commun entièrement défini à l’aune de celui des dominants financiers – l’entreprise est vouée à devenir un des instruments, juridiquement validé, de la dictature universelle. Conformément à la volonté des dominants économiques, le droit de l’entreprise va devenir un droit dictatorial chargé de mettre en œuvre la dictature universelle parée de « vert » mais armée de rouge sang.

L'auteur, Valérie Bugault, est Docteur en droit, ancienne avocate fiscaliste, analyste de géopolitique juridique et économique.

Notes:

(1) Cf. « La nouvelle entreprise » publiée en 2018 aux éditions Sigest ; https://lesakerfrancophone.fr/valerie-bugault-la-nouvelle... ; https://lesakerfrancophone.fr/valerie-bugault-les-raisons...

(2) Lire « La nouvelle entreprise », publié en 2018 aux éditions Sigest

(3) Cf. Loi dite Pacte : https://www.novethic.fr/actualite/entreprise-responsable/...

- Source : le Saker Francophone

The concept of Empire: Pagan Rome

Alexander Sherbakov

 

Ex: https://www.geopolitica.ru

In our common understanding the term empire usually denotes a powerful country, in which one ethnicity oppressively rules others. Examples of these can include colonial empires of Spain, France, or Great Britain. Another way the term empire gets used is to describe the most powerful countries in their region that have gained control of that region militarily: examples of such naming conventions include all Chinese ‘empires’ from Qin to Qing, or Mughals in India, or the Mongols. Both these definitions however are later and erroneous ways of using the term empire that came into existence since the European Age of Modernity. However, the primordial definition and traits of an empire go way beyond these simplistic definitions that have stuck to our shared imagination. However, by exploring and un-covering the deep-lying etymological and historical roots of the term Empire it will be possible to transcend the flawed conception imposed on us since the times of Modernity.

There are three main stages through which the term empire has evolved. First stage is the Pagan Roman one – ‘imperium’ – that has its origins during the Roman Kingdom and ends with Constantine the Great. The second is the Christian Roman definition of ‘imperium’ and ‘basilea’ that runs from Constantine the Great all the way to Constantine XI. Finally, the last stage is the Orthodox Russian ‘tsardom’ that runs from Ivan IV up until Nicholas II.

In this first instance I invite you to consider the inception of the term Empire in Ancient Rome, covering the periods from Rome’s foundation in 753 BC to 312 AD, which is the date of Constantine the Great’s victory at the Milvian Bridge.

The term Empire or ‘imperium’ comes from the Latin verb ‘imperō’ – to command or to rule, which itself derives from the Proto-Indo-European root of ‘per’ – to bring forward or to produce.

Given such origin, ‘imperium’ was a political power that enabled a person to command other people, to be the first to propose new legislation or give military commands. In addition, the root ‘per’ suggests primacy and a vertical social relationship between the imperator – the one holding the ‘imperium’ – and those to whom his commands are directed.

The main application of the word ‘imperium’ in Roman Kingdom (753-509 BC) and Roman Republic (509-27 BC) was as a military position of an army general that granted a magistrate legal power to command. Importantly, ‘imperium’ was a social concept that conferred the commanding powers to a person by a group of subordinates. As such, Roman kings had to be elected by a group of patricians who also bestowed them with the power of ‘imperium’. Thus, an ‘imperator’ or emperor was the first man in society, but his powers were hinged upon that very society’s favour, creating a sort of a social contract. An excellent visualisation of imperium being a social contract is seen by another institutional rule of Ancient Rome – the Pomerium. The Pomerium was a legal border of the city of Rome proper which in Roman Republic was prohibited from entry by anyone in possession of army command – generals, imperatores. Any imperator who entered the gates of Pomerium automatically forfeited his social contract, lost the Imperium, and stopped being an army general. As such, it is crucial to understand that throughout the Roman Kingdom and Republic imperium was a commanding power that was bestowed upon a person by the society, and nothing but that.

Fast forward to Augustus, we come to the period of Roman history generally called the ‘Principate’ in which all emperors from Augustus to Carinus maintained the importance of social contract as their source of power. In truth, Roman Empire should really denote the Roman state ruled by a commander, whose legitimacy derives from the public approval. Indeed, even though the role of the senate and the consuls was greatly diminished, the inner working of the Roman society remained the same as it was during the Republic. This was exemplified by the growing importance of the military class to ensure and dictate the office of Emperor. In particular, the Praetorian Guard, evolved into the elite bodyguard army unit to the emperor himself, by enjoying close proximity to the ruler, were able to orchestrate military coups and even sell the title of emperor on one occasion to Didius Julianus. The epitome of the importance of the army has come during the Crisis of the Third Century, whence the Roman state had seen almost 30 emperors in 50 years. The pretender emperor was usually acclaimed by his legions in exchange for monetary gains and promotions. The choosing of ‘imperator’ as well as his social status therefore remained as they were under the Republic: the emperor was a person vested with commanding powers through a social contract by a group of inferiors. Furthermore, incompetence or unpopularity of an emperor has often led to new pretenders, coups and murders, thus further reinforcing the idea of social contract between the ‘imperator’ and his inferiors.

Crisis of the Third Century brought such a strain on the political and economic bases of Rome that a radical change was necessary. Emperor Diocletian recognised this and implemented an overhaul of the empire creating a ‘tetrarchy’ splitting the power into four, and starting the historical period known as the ‘Dominate’. This period is characterised by the distancing of the ‘imperium’ holder from his inferiors, giving himself larger autonomy to rule and boosting the prestige of the position. Diocletian further divided Roman lands into more numerous provinces under dioceses, making it harder for pretenders to rise and gain support of the military. The next reform was to share the ‘imperium’ between four titleholders: two senior emperors and two junior caesars. Even though Diocletian’s reforms worked in the short term to stabilise Rome, the long term effects were rather inadequate and only really deepened the social contract between emperor and subjects. That is, now the emperor was expected to behave even more as a benevolent master, bestowing more gifts and promoting officials; quite obviously, the failure to do so resulted in civil strife as happened during the time of Constantine the Great. Furthermore, the division of the imperial power into four under ‘tetrachy’ has led in the long-term to the permanent split of Rome into East and West in 395 AD. Given what we have described about the nature of legitimacy of power through ‘imperium’ this split presents itself as unavoidable. The power to command the ‘imperium’ makes the titleholder appear as the first amongst equals by the Roman society as a whole. As such, two men could not simultaneously hold primacy without clashing. Furthermore, with the increasing importance of the role of the emperor during Dominate, the prestige and benefits have become too great to share between two ambitious men.

At the same time, however, Diocletian has set in motion two major developments to the social contract of ‘imperium’. First is the centralisation of the governmental administration on the figure of the emperor, making the entire state dependent on having a strong and capable ruler like never before. This development will come to clear view after the battle of Adrianople later on in 378 AD, which saw the emperor Valens killed on the battlefield. The death of Valens has sent shocks across the entire Eastern Roman administration, and produced a new political system in which emperors almost never left the capital Constantinople in order to preserve the administration, the ‘imperium’, and their lives. This state of affairs continued all the way until emperor Heracleios in 610 AD, who became the first Roman emperor to personally command the army against a foreign enemy since Valens. The second major development that can be attributed to Diocletian is his formal separation of Roman state from the city of Rome. Ever since the Crisis of the Third Century started, the capital of Rome was in practice wherever the acting emperor had his legions, thus diminishing the importance of Rome as a capital. Since the city of Rome was poorly protected from attacks and sieges from pretenders, its possession stopped conferring the same legitimacy as it did under the Principate. As such, Diocletian elevated this practical state of affairs to become legislation by moving his court to Nicaea in Eastern Anatolia. The big significance of this move is the detachment of the legitimacy of ‘imperium’ from one specific place or city. There will be two more major centres of Roman state throughout the rest of Roman history, namely Constantinople and Moscow. However, neither of them will have the Pomerium mentioned earlier, thus legally depriving the capital from having juridical force to grant or take away the power or ‘imperium’.

This point seems to be a fitting end to the first part of my exploration of the concept of Empire, which concentrated specifically on Pagan Roman period and the usage of the term during this time. The main takeaways would be to underline how the Latin word for Empire – ‘imperium’ implied a social contract by which a person gained rights to command and legislate. This social contract was premised upon appeasing the lower social strata that has put the ‘imperium’ holder in charge. This fact has often led to rebellions, civil strife, and ultimately the Crisis of the Third Century. In the next article I will attempt to explicate the way ‘imperium’ changed when Rome became a Christian state, and the way Divine Favour started to replace social contract.

Related links

Horizon of the Ideal Empire

The Third Rome and the “Cult of Victory”

The Holy Roman Empire can help inspire a different European Union

Orthodox Essence of the Eurasian Empire

Interdit de ne pas interdire ?

Interdit de ne pas interdire ?

par François-Bernard Huyghe

Ex: http://www.huyghe.fr & http://metapoinfos.hautetfort.com

 

Interdits de parole publique à tel endroit ou menacés pour tel propos sur telle antenne : Agacinski, Finkielkraut, Zemmour, Sifaoui, Zineb el Rhazoui, G. Lejeune. Tous ces gens connus, qui ne disent ni ne pensent la même chose, ont en commun de subir l’interdit pour crimepensée. Ils ont été menacés et empêchés de parler depuis quelques mois (et bientôt depuis quelques lois). De belles âmes (de Nutella aux associations antifas) le réclament de la justice, de l’administration qui gère des salles et des formations, ou des médias (menace de boycott par les annonceurs via les Sleeping Giants): faites les taire.

Certains au nom de l’héritage de Mai 68. Le « il est interdit d’interdire » est devenu « censurer sans entraves ».

Bien sûr, les suspects peuvent encore écrire ou fréquenter des plateaux de télévision. Là, avant le clash qui fera le buzz, ils entendront le rituel : « Ne nous assommez pas avec votre on ne peut plus rien dire, la preuve : vous êtes à l’antenne ». Mais ils y sont en situation de défense, confrontés à des accusateurs, toujours en position de se justifier: sous-entendus, faux degrés d’interprétation, complicité objective qu’ils entretiendraient avec les forces du mal, peurs et des haines qu’ils déclencheraient. On attendra qu’ils franchissent une ligne rouge ou révèlent leurs sous-entendus. Pour ce qu’ils penseraient subjectivement voire inconsciemment comme pour ce qu’ils provoqueraient objectivement (comme la « libération des tabous »). Avant de parler, ils doivent prouver d’où ils parlent et qui visent leurs paroles.

Cette asymétrie (nul ne soumet à pareil examen les tenants du consensus idéologique), montre qu’une idéologie dominante se défend aussi par interdits et soupçons. Cela consiste ici à créer une catégorie de: les « dangers » de leurs propos sont pesés (incitation ?), leurs arrière-pensées (discriminantes ?).

Le rétablissement de l’interdit au nom d’une prétendue post-gauche (celle qui ne veut plus changer le monde, mais les âmes des phobes et haineux) repose sur trois postulats. Ils ont mis quelques décennies à s’imposer, notamment via le politiquement correct.

Le postulat d’irréversibilité. L’État de droit libéral, le mariage pour tous et la PMA, l’ouverture européenne et multiculturelle, la tragédie du réchauffement climatique, etc. sont définitivement entrés et dans les faits et dans les erveaux. Ce sont des cliquets d’irréversibilité. Toute critique à cette égard est non seulement réactionnaire (jusque là on peut admettre), mais c’est une non-pensée. Voire un négationnisme. Elle est socialement dangereuse et s’exclut ipso facto du champs du débat : il ne peut porter que sur l’approfondissement de ce qui est. Et il implique la liquidation des dernières poches de domination, dans la tête des gens.

Le postulat de fragilité des masses (devenues des foules et sur lesquelles décidément on ne peut plus compter). Elles ne peuvent bien voter, c’est-à-dire soutenir les élites bienveillantes, que protégées du faux (fake news), rassurées (certains pourrait surfer sur leurs peurs) et convenablement protégées des pseudo-idées populistes qui sont autant d’incitation à la haine. Isoler leur cerveau des contagions complotistes ou autres désinformations, c’est garantir la démocratie et nos valeurs. À ce compte, pourquoi ne pas rétablir le suffrage censitaire : il n’y aurait plus que des gens ouverts et bien informés qui voteraient.

Le postulat victimaire. Il consiste à évaluer une idée ou une affirmation à l’aune de la souffrance présumée qu’elle cause à telle communauté ou de l’affront fait à telle identité imaginaire. Les idées ne sont plus soumises au critère de vérification mais de réception : ça fait mal à qui se réclame de telle identité ou telle conviction ? Il faut aussitôt en contrôler la diffusion.

L’affaire Mila l’illustre parfaitement : une LGBT de seize ans dit détester toutes les religions, en particulier l’islam qu’elle qualifie de religion de haine et de merde. Aussitôt pleuvent des milliers de menaces de mort ou de viol sur les réseaux sociaux. Mais le plus significatif est la réaction embarrassée des médias, des leaders d’opinion ou des dirigeants. On se polarise sur le droit (on n’a pas le droit de menacer, le blasphème n’est pas interdit, mais où passe la frontière avec l’injure aux personnes et non aux idées ?), on se demande même si la gamine n’a pas un peu attenté à la liberté de conscience des croyants. Mais en adoptant ces postulats - et pour certains en mettant sur le même plan des injures et menaces de mort à une personne dont la vie est maintenant brisée et la souffrance subjective que l’on éprouve de savoir que d’autres méprisent nos convictions -, on fait de l’argument victimaire une arme paradoxale : plus vous hurlez que vous souffrez, plus vous avez le droit de menacer.

Ce processus fait partie de l’américanisation de la vie intellectuelle française : les principes de politiquement correct et de respect des sensibilités chers aux universités américaines. Toute pensée qui fait obstacle à une identité, héritée ou choisie, vaut oppression. Elle ne peut donc être - on en revient au même - une pensée mais une action agressive. Donc punissable.

Et si tous ces postulats relevaient d’une forme d’idéalisme ? Pour lui, les pensées perverses sont puissantes, elles naissent absurdement dans certaines cervelles, ils faut donc les faire disparaître pour abolir toutes les dominations. Élégante façon d’oublier les rapports sociaux au profit des rapports de censure.