ꕤ
Article
SOURCE
http://westlanglit.boun.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Lecture-4-Machiavelli.pdf
In Summary
TITLE
Niccolò Machiavelli:
An Orientation for Study
Niccolò Machiavelli
(Florence, 1469 –
Florence, 1527)
The Enigma of Machiavelli:
the Paradoxes and Ambiguities of ‘The Prince’
‘The Enigma of Machiavelli will perhaps never be resolved’
Benedetto Croce
* Machiavelli’s The Prince (Il Principe) - 1513
-- ‘manual’ for the conduct of rulers
-- in the tradition of ‘mirrors for princes’ (specula principum)
principum specula {Latin}
ie -- mirrors for princes
= genre – in the loose sense of the word – of political writing during Early Middle Ages, Middle Ages and the Renaissance.
= textbooks which directly instruct kings or lesser rulers on certain aspects of rule and behaviour
= (in broader sense) histories or literary works aimed at creating images of kings for imitation or avoidance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrors_for_princes
{on face of text}
-- treatise advising rulers how to establish power
-- treatise advising rulers how to perpetuate power
-- nature and mechanisms of princely rule
-- very foundational text of modern political science
-- political manifesto
-- remarkable satire against state power
-- notoriously a divisive text
-- provoking different & diametrically opposed reactions:
Machiavelli
-- ‘devil incarnate’ (as witnessed in English expression ‘Old Nick’)
-- sets forth a deeply immoral and deceitful doctrine
versus
celebrated as ‘martyr of liberty’
-- profound political thinker entirely misunderstood
-- being forced to hide true nature of his political thinking
(in an oppressive ideological & political climate)
Violent and deceitful ruler --
uses political power of the state in a manner unfettered by:
- boundaries of law
- boundaries of morality or ethics
ruling through:
- open dissimulation (concealing true intentions / false appearances)
- manipulation
- tyrannical actions
( eg. eradication of the royal bloodlines of his rivals )
Poses question
Is Machiavelli ultimately:
- defender of monarchies
- mere mouthpiece of tyrants
- subversive thinker
(covert champion of republics & of the liberty that citizens possess)
[ blogger is going with: he was a realist ]
Interpretations
1500s
- Humanist Thinkers 16th Century
- Different philosophers
- Clergymen
- Writers
Machievelli is taken literally
& even coining the term ‘Machiavellian’ for depiction of cunning, deceit and hypocrisy in politics [& beyond | psychological trait also]
Shakespeare
Machiavelli embodied a type of politics:
- proceeding entirely without morality
- moreover, a blasphemous politics
(instead of being justified by religion, instrumentalises religion)
-- ie politics / power for its own power-seeking purposes
Enlightenment
Political Thinkers claim:
- represents a political ruse: a profound satire against monarchies
- Machiavelli professed to teach the princes
... but in fact he teaches the people
-- denouncing the nature of monarchical rule
-- profoundly anti-monarchical & republican
-- compares The Prince to: The Discourses on Livy
“When Machiavelli wrote his treatise on the prince, it is as if he said to his fellow citizens: read this work carefully, should you ever accept a master, he will be such as I depict him to you.
Here is the savage brute to whom you will be abandoning yourselves.
Thus it was the fault of his contemporaries if they misjudged him: they took a satire for a eulogy.”
‘Machiavellianism’ | Encyclopédie | ('presumably written by Diderot')
An Analysis of Power:
Machiavelli’s Science of Politics
Context
analysis of The Prince
= backdrop of scientific & philosophical revolutions
of 16th & 17th centuries (ie 1500s & 1600s)
Machiavelli
= a thinker announcing a new, modern era of politics
new scientific object: the science of politics as analysis of power
new physics of Copernicus and Galileo
= breaks with scholasticism & closed and hierarchized universe of the ancients
Likewise: Machiavelli’s account of politics
= break with the medieval conceptions:
- hierachised world
- heterogeneous political privileges
- heterogeneous social privileges
[heterogeneous: consisting of dissimilar elements; not homogeneous]
= break with the medieval doctrinal justifications:
- theological justifications
- ethical justifications
scientists of early modern era
study natural bodies and their movements
without concern for their ‘value’ or their states of perfection
Machiavelli addresses (in complete abstraction)
questions of politics and political legitimacy
[so, politics & political legitimacy considered in isolation from]:
- theological concerns
- ethical concerns
- moral concerns
suspending judgements on the ends of political realities
Parallel manner to Machiavelli
= how geometrical abstractions
allow early modern physicists to construct a universe
governed by uniform & universal laws
Machiavelli treats politics as being composed of:
- 'lines'
- 'surfaces'
- 'solids'
Machiavelli sees politics as
subject to general laws
which regulate:
1. preservation/ maintenance; and
2. expansion of political power & rule.
Explanation of Political Power & Rule
= evaluated in a purely technical, or instrumental sense
key element
explanation of abstract concepts
whose similarity of patterns
shows
-- constants that overshadow variations of politics
-- a universal
Historical Precondition
dissolution of feudal socio-political and economic order
with complex hierarchized layers
-- establishment of a new centre of gravity
ie secular state of absolute monarchies
New Political Legitimacy
#1
dispensing with religious or theological justification
of political rule
and of sovereignty
(i.e. with the idea of the divine right of kings)
#2
dispensing with
classical standard/prescriptive theories of the humanist thinkers
Political power is ultimately grounded in itself
it is vested in its own self-preservation
re spheres of:
instead of being superior to politics,
these spheres (Religion, Ethics, Law) are:
1. subordinated to preservation/maintenance of state political power
2. serve functional purposes for attaining inherently political ends
Virtù and Fortuna:
The Prince as a Political Manifesto
The Prince:
last chapter
(‘An Exortation to Seize Italy and to Free her from the Barbarians’)
shows:
Machiavelli text
= not as detached, or neutral scientific treatise,
but as an engaged text, a text written for its time
= not a systematic work re general political theory
applicable to each & every condition
= text written for a specific purpose:
re concrete political condition, (Italian states - 1500s)
[blogger's opinion: text has wide application, because history repeats itself & human nature and politics remains largely the same]
Machiavelli - Italy
situation of:
-- widespread political disunity and dismemberment
-- dependency and submission by foreign rule
-- universal distrust and political apathy among the popular masses
[That sounds like present-day Europe,to me.]
Machiavelli solution
-- imperative to set a new historical task:
advent of a NEW PRINCE being capable of RALLYING the necessary POLITICAL FORCES for the establishment of a new principality:
UNIFIED POLITICAL FORM across the Italian lands
‘On the German Constitution’ | Hegel
Machiavelli had the audacity to:
pose the question of an urgent historical objective
-- creation of political unity {or the formation of a new state}
- -- against all odds
- -- without even the minimal visible preconditions for its realization
Machiavelli:
-- speaks about a concrete political task to be brought about in his time
-- poses the theoretical question of the necessary practical appearance of a new prince
-- new prince a concrete political task
-- but new prince is a theoretical question
-- answer to new prince not starting from concrete force
-- new prince is something that can be anticipated -- something exposed to CHANCE
Machiavelli Paradox
profound political realism
combined with
emphasis on historical & political miracles
{on chance & contingency}
One of the most intriguing aspects of The Prince
= analysis of the role of chance
& contingency in human affairs
Machiavelli formulates theory on role of chance re actions of the new prince
new prince
- can only succeed in his political task {ie founding a new principality}
- if he combines an explosive use to fortune/chance
- in the guise of inevitability of favourable historical circumstances
New Prince virtue:
= his (subjective) capacity
= of MASTERING the UNEXPECTED & the UNKNOWN
by:
= acting DECISIVELY on FAVOURABLE moments (ie chance)
The theory of virtù and fortuna
(‘virtue’ and ‘fortune’)
fundamental revaluation of classical:
- political
- ethical
- theological
terms
‘Fortuna’ is not (as the Ancients conceived):
'Fortuna' is something profoundly SECULAR
'Fortuna' in the simplest sense is:
-- the unpredictability of human political and social affairs
-- the chance (ie surprises that history presents us)
Virtù is also quite far removed from the ‘virtue'
theorized by the Greek & Roman thinkers or by humanist philosophers
Virtù
= does not denote an exceptional ethical or political quality
(ie degree of human excellence used as an IDEAL measure of all human affairs)
Virtù
= depicts a profane:
- STRATEGIC and TACTICAL prowess
which DOES NOT SHY AWAY from
assuming CONTRADICTORY SHAPES, being simultaneously:
-- defensive (and offensive)
-- resolute (and timid)
-- man (and beast)
-- lion (and fox)
-- reserved (and impetuous)
-- following rules & precepts(and expecting the unknown)
in accordance to the demands of concrete historical circumstances.
source
http://westlanglit.boun.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Lecture-4-Machiavelli.pdf
I really enjoyed doing the summary of the PDF.
I like Machiavelli, I think.
It's all good ... unless you're on the receiving end. lol
Scholasticism
dominant form of theological and philosophical study in Western Christianity in the Middle Ages, based on authority of the Latin Fathers and of Aristotle and his commentators
system of philosophy, theology, and teaching that dominated medieval western Europe and was based on the writings of the Church Fathers and (from the 12th century) Aristotle
Middle Ages
European history
b/w antiquity & Renaissance, often dated ad 476 to 1453
(broadly) period from end of classical antiquity
(or the deposition of the last W Roman emperor - 476 ad)
to Italian Renaissance (or the fall of Constantinople - 1453)
European history
b/w classical antiquity and Renaissance
from late 5th century -- late 400s to abt 1350
- sometimes restricted to period after 1100
- sometimes extended to 1450 or 1500
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/middle+ages
Dark Ages
Europe from
from fall of Rome in the 5th century ad
to restoration of relative political stability
abt. 1000 -- the early part of the Middle Ages
[so, it took 600 years to begin to recover]
Entire Middle Ages
esp. when viewed as a troubled period
marked by the loss of classical learning
No longer in use by historians
a. 5th century ad to about 1000 ad,
once considered an unenlightened period
b. whole medieval period
1. A.D. 476 to abt 1000.
2. whole of the Middle Ages, from abt. A.D. 476 to Renaissance.
3. (often l.c.) a period or stage marked by repressiveness, a lack of advanced knowledge, etc.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Dark+Ages
XV. The Dark Ages (500-800 CE)
a. Universal rule under Rome collapsed
i. Separate barbarian kingdoms ruled in Rome’s place
b. Economic decline
i. Trade
1. Infrastructure fell apart (roads and bridges)
2. Piracy in the seas hurt trade
3. Few coins minted
ii. Industry
1. With limited trade, little demand for goods
2. Fewer skilled workers trained
3. Depopulation of cities (workers returned to farms)
c. Culture and learning
i. Illiteracy grew
ii. Ancient wisdom of Greece and Rome largely lost
1. Preserved by Christian monks (Europe) and Muslim Arabs (Middle East and northern Africa)
http://www.studenthandouts.com/01-Web-Pages/001-Pages/09.04.Barbarian-Invasions-Outline.htm
Renaissance
rebirth or revival
abt. 14th through the 16th century, marking the transition from medieval to modern times
ie -- 1300s - 1500s
humanistic revival of classical art, architecture, literature, and learning that originated in Italy in the 14th century and later spread throughout Europe.
(Historical Terms)
a. the spirit, culture, art, science, and thought of this period. Characteristics of the Renaissance are usually considered to include intensified classical scholarship, scientific and geographical discovery, a sense of individual human potentialities, and the assertion of the active and secular over the religious and contemplative life.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Rennaissance
Fall of Rome
Throughout the 5th century, the Empire's territories in western Europe and northwestern Africa, including Italy, fell to various invading or indigenous peoples in what is sometimes called the Migration period. Although the eastern half still survived with borders essentially intact for several centuries (until the Muslim conquests), the Empire as a whole had initiated major cultural and political transformations since the Crisis of the Third Century, with the shift towards a more openly autocratic and ritualized form of government, the adoption of Christianity as the state religion, and a general rejection of the traditions and values of Classical Antiquity.
EXTRACT
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Fall+of+Rome
XIV. Odoacer and the fall of Rome
a. 476 CE – the barbarian general, Odoacer, dethroned the last Western Roman emperor, Romulus Augustus
i. No one even knows for certain which tribe he belonged to, only that he was Germanic
ii. The conquest of the Western Roman Empire was a long process, and a lot of factors contributed to Rome’s decline
b. This date (476 CE) is traditionally used for the end of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Middle Ages, circa 500-1400 (or Dark Ages, circa 500-800)
http://www.studenthandouts.com/01-Web-Pages/001-Pages/09.04.Barbarian-Invasions-Outline.htm
Conquest of Hispania (711–718)
+ Septimania (719–720)
The conquest of the Iberian Peninsula and Septimania commenced when the Moors (Black Africans, Berbers and Arabs) invaded Visigothic Christian Iberia (modern Spain, Portugal, Andorra, Septimania) in the year 711. Under their Moorish leader, Tariq ibn Ziyad, they landed at Gibraltar on April 30 and worked their way northward. Tariq's forces were joined the next year by those of his superior, Musa bin Nusair. During the eight-year campaign most of the Iberian Peninsula was brought under Islamic rule—save for small areas in the northwest (Asturias, Cantabria) and largely Basque regions in the western Pyrenees.
This territory, under the Arab name Al-Andalus, became first an Emirate and then an independent Umayyad Caliphate, the Caliphate of Córdoba, after the overthrowing of the dynasty in Damascus by the Abbasids. When the Caliphate dissolved in 1031 due to the effects of the Fitna of al-Ándalus [period of instability and civil war that preceded the ultimate collapse of the Caliphate of Córdoba ... fitna = 'distress' {Arabic}], the territory split into small Taifas, and gradually the Christian kingdoms started the Reconquest up to 1492, when Granada, the last kingdom of Al-Andalus fell under the Catholic Monarchs.
Fitna of al-Andalus
Muslim kingdoms were aided by the Christian kingdoms to the north, both in an official capacity and by mercenary Christian soldiers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitna_of_al-Andalus
Conquest of the Caucasus: 711–750
End of the Umayyad conquests: 718–750
Further information: Islamic invasion of Gaul
The success of the Bulgarian Empire and the Byzantine Empire in dispelling the second Umayyad siege of Constantinople halted further conquests of Asia Minor in 718. In 716 Khan Tervel signed an important agreement with Byzantium. During the siege of Constantinople in 717–718 he sent 50,000 troops to help the besieged city. In the decisive battle the Bulgarians massacred around 30,000 Arabs and Khan Tervel was called The saviour of Europe by his contemporaries. After their success in overrunning the Iberian peninsula, the Umayyads had moved northeast over the Pyrenees where they were defeated in 721 at the Battle of Toulouse and then at the Battle of Covadonga. A second invasion was stopped by the Frankish Mayor of the Palace Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732 and then at the Battle of the River Berre checking the Umayyad expansion at Narbonne.
The Türgesh Kaganate, a Turkic dynasty of the 700s, saw significant initial success fighting against the Umayyads. In 717, the Kara Turgesh elected Suluk as their Khaghan. The new ruler moved his capital to Balasagun in the Chuy valley, receiving the homage of several chieftains formerly bond to the service of Bilge Khaghan of the Türküt. Suluk acted as a bulwark against further Umayyad encroachment from the south: the Arabs had indeed become a major player in recent times, despite the fact that Islam had yet to make many converts in central Asia. Suluk's aim was to reconquer all of Transoxiana [Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, southern Kyrgyzstan & southwest Kazakhstan areas] from the Arab invaders - his series of conquests was paralleled to the west by the activity of the Khazar empire. In 721 Turgesh forces, led by Kül Chor, defated the Caliphal army commanded by Sa'id ibn Abdu'l-Aziz near Samarkand. Sa'id's successor, Al-Kharashi, massacred Turks and Sogdian refugees in Khujand, causing an influx of refugees towards the Turgesh. In 724 Caliph Hisham sent a new governor to Khorasan, Muslim ibn Sa'id, with orders to crush the "Turks" once and for all. Confronted by Suluk on the way, however, Muslim reached Samarkand with only a handful of survivors, and the Turgesh were enabled to raid freely. A string of subsequent appointees of Hisham were soundly defeated by Suluk, who in 728 even managed to take Bukhara and later on destroyed a large part of the Caliphate's army in Khurasan, discrediting Umayyad rule and maybe putting the foundations for the Abbasid revolution. The Turgesh state was at its apex of glory, controlling Sogdiana, the Ferghana Valley. It was only in 732, that two powerful Arab expeditions to Samarkand managed, if with embarrassing losses, to re-establish Caliphal authority in the area; Suluk renounced his ambitions over Samarkand and abandoned Bukhara, withdrawing north. In 734 an early Abbasid follower, al-Harith ibn Surayj, rose in revolt against Umayyad rule and took Balkh and Marv before defecting to the Turgesh three years later, defeated. In 738 Suluk, along with his allies Ibn Surayj, Gurak (a Turco-Sogdian leader) and men from Usrushana, Tashkent and Khuttal to launch a final offensive. He entered Jowzjan but was defeated by the Umayyad governor Asad at the Battle of Sa'n or Kharistan.
In 738, the Umayyad armies were defeated by the Indian Hindu kings at the Battle of Rajasthan, checking the eastern expansion of the empire. In 740, the Berber Revolt weakened Umayyad ability to launch any further expeditions and, after the Abbasid overthrow in 756 at Cordoba, a separate Arab state was established on the Iberian peninsula, even as the Muhallabids were unable to keep Ifriqiya from political fragmentation.
In the east, internal revolts and local dissent led to the downfall of the Umayyad dynasty. The Khariji and Zaidi revolts coupled with mawali dissatisfaction as second class citizens in respect to Arabs created the support base necessary for the Abbasid revolt in 748. The Abbasids were soon involved in numerous Shia revolts and the breakaway of Ifriqiya [Nth Africa, Tunisia & part Libya] from the Caliph's authority completely in the case of the Idrisids and Rustamids and nominally under the Aghlabids, under whom Muslim rule was extended temporarily to Sicily and mainland Italy before being overrun by the competing Fatimids.
The Abbasid caliph, even as he competed for authority with the Fatimid Caliph, also had to devolve greater power to the increasing power of regional rulers. This began the process of fragmentation that soon gave rise to numerous local ruling dynasties who would contend for territory with each other and eventually establish kingdoms and empires and push the boundaries of the Muslim world on their own authority, giving rise to Mamluk and Turkic dynasties such as the Seljuks, Khwarezmshahs and the Ayyubids who fought the crusades, as well as the Ghaznavids and Ghorids who conquered India.
In Iberia, Charles Martel's son, Pippin the Younger, retook Narbonne, and his grandson Charlemagne actually established the Marca Hispanica across the Pyrenees in part of what today is Catalonia, reconquering Girona in 785 and Barcelona in 801. This formed a permanent buffer zone against Muslims, with Frankish strongholds in Iberia (the Carolingian Empire Spanish Marches), which became the basis, along with the King of Asturias for the Reconquista, spanning 700 years which after the fall of the Caliphate of Córdoba contested with both the successor taifas as well as the African-based Muslim empires, such as the Almoravids and Almohads, until all of the Muslims were expelled from the Iberian peninsula.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Muslim+conquests
Incursions into southern Italy: 831–902
The Aghlabids rulers of Ifriqiya under the Abbasids, using present-day Tunisia as their launching pad conquered Palermo in 831, Messina in 842, Enna in 859, Syracuse in 878, Catania in 900 and the final Byzantine stronghold, the fortress of Taormina, in 902 setting up emirates in Sicily. In 846 the Aghlabids sacked Rome.
Berber and Tulunid rebellions quickly led to the rise of the Fatimids taking over Aghlabid territory . The Kalbid dynasty administered the Emirate of Sicily for the Fatimids by proxy from 948. By 1053 the dynasty died out in a dynastic struggle and interference from the Berber Zirids of Ifriqiya led to its breakdown into small fiefdoms which were captured by the Italo-Normans by 1091.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Muslim+conquests
Conquest of Anatolia: 1060–1360
The Abbasid period saw initial expansion and the capture of Crete (840). The Abbasids soon shifted their attention towards the east. During the later fragmentation of the Abbasid rule and the rise of their Shiite rivals the Fatimids and Buyids, a resurgent Byzantium recaptured Crete and Cilicia in 961, Cyprus in 965, and pushed into the Levant by 975. The Byzantines successfully contested with the Fatimids for influence in the region until the arrival of the Seljuq Turks who first allied with the Abbasids and then ruled as the de facto rulers.
In 1068 Alp Arslan and allied Turkmen tribes recaptured many Abbasid lands and even invaded Byzantine regions, pushing further into eastern and central Anatolia after a major victory at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. The disintegration of the Seljuk dynasty, the first unified Turkic dynasty, resulted in the rise of subsequent, smaller, rival Turkic kingdoms such as the Danishmends, the Sultanate of Rûm, and various Atabegs who contested the control of the region during the Crusades and incrementally expanded across Anatolia until the rise of the Ottoman Empire.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Muslim+conquests
Fall of Constantinople
Part of the Byzantine–Ottoman Wars and Ottoman wars in Europe
Date 6 April – 29 May 1453
Location Constantinople (present-day Istanbul)
Result
Decisive Ottoman victory;
Collapse of the Byzantine Empire;
Ottomans form an empire by transferring their capital to this imperial city;
End of Middle Ages and start of the Renaissance
Belligerents
Flag of Palaeologus Emperor.svg Byzantine Empire
Republic of Genoa
Republic of Venice
Ottoman Empire
Commanders and leaders
Flag of Palaeologus Emperor.svg Constantine XI
Flag of Palaeologus Emperor.svg Loukas Notaras Executed
Republic of Genoa Giovanni Giustiniani
Ottoman Empire Mehmed II
Ottoman Empire Zagan Pasha
Ottoman Empire Suleiman Baltoghlu
Strength
7,000
8,000
10,000
26 ships
50,000– 80,000
100,000–200,000 to 300,000
70 ships, 20 galleys
70 cannons (14 large and 56 small calibre)
Casualties and losses
4,000 killed in total (including combatants and civilians)
30,000 Civilians enslaved or deported
Unknown
260 Ottoman prisoners executed
a: Figures according to recent estimates and Ottoman archival data. The Ottoman Empire, for demographic reasons, would not have been able to put more than 80,000 men into the field at the time.
b: Figures according to contemporaneous Western/Christian estimates.
Byzantine–Ottoman Wars
Bapheus Catalan Campaign Bursa Pelekanon Nicaea Nicomedia 1st Gallipoli Adrianople 2nd Gallipoli Philadelphia 1st Constantinople Thessalonica 2nd Constantinople Trebizond
The Fall of Constantinople was the capture of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire, which occurred after a siege by the Ottoman Empire, under the command of 21-year-old Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II, against the defending army commanded by Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos. The siege lasted from Friday, 6 April 1453 until Tuesday, 29 May 1453 (according to the Julian calendar), when the city was conquered by the Ottomans.
The capture of Constantinople (and two other Byzantine splinter territories soon thereafter) marked the end of the last remnant of the Roman Empire, an imperial state which had lasted for nearly 1,500 years.
Ottomans saw the conquest as a continuation of the Empire with a transfer of power, since Mehmed II was referred to as the Emperor of Rome.
The conquest was also a massive blow to Christendom, and the Ottomans thereafter were free to advance into Europe without an adversary to their rear.
After the conquest, Mehmed made Constantinople the Ottoman Empire's new capital.
Several Greek and non-Greek intellectuals fled the city before and after the siege, migrating particularly to Italy. It is argued that they helped fuel the Renaissance.
Some mark the end of the Middle Ages by the fall of the city and empire.
ABOVE - EXTRACT ONLY
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Fall+of+Constantinople
---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------
COMMENT
Looking at history is endless.
Every connection investigated leads to yet another connection that needs investigating.
I've only had a scant look. Not sure I'll remember much of this history. Would have to keep looking at it for it to sink in. Especially the names & place names.
It looks like migrations following war are nothing new.
It seems like history is nothing but a quest for personal power and domination, that becomes a larger and far more vital quest of survival or existence, when viewed 'back from the future'.
System or power collapse (and civilisation collapse) is a long-term recovery process spanning hundreds of years.
Are we witnessing the collapse of the West, I wonder? The bit about Rome getting more openly autocratic with ritualised government had me thinking, yikes!
I'm thinking in terms of the mass surveillance, militarised police, infiltrations of activists, gagging orders, secret trials, journalism redefined as 'terrorism' and that sort of thing.
Not sure what the ritualised government might be, although Assange (WikiLeaks) mentioned the US flag worship as a ritualised element of the US empire and said that there's an inner circle 'priesthood' of intelligence powers that confers a religious status on matters concerning intelligence ... or something like that. lol
Looks like Shiites and the Sunnis were opposed to one another as far back as the 800s. How odd that they couldn't agree to disagree -- over hundreds of years.
ꕤ
|
EU-NATO IMPERIALISM ❌ 