History, War and Peace
Qin Shi Huang is known as the First Emperor of China. He succeeded in unifying the warring states of that country into a single Empire. It will surprise no one to hear that this was done by force, at the expense of history. There were great technical advantages to this situation. Before the unification, these states were writing in numerous different scripts and languages, doing business with numerous different forms of currency, and using different systems of weights and measurements. Communication, commerce, and science, all benefited greatly from the unification. On the other hand, executing scholars and burning books was what accomplished a great deal of this. In a very short time, little trace of the distinct cultures that had been conquered by Qin Shi Huang remained. To compare the first Emperor’s rule to any previous government became an offense punishable by death. All this took place in the name of peace, as Qin saw clearly that the distinct character of these cultures was a source of conflict. He was not the last ruler to make that observation.
"He buried 460 scholars alive; we have buried forty-six thousand scholars alive... You [intellectuals] revile us for being Qin Shi Huangs. You are wrong. We have surpassed Qin Shi Huang a hundredfold."
-Mao Zedong, on Empire-building
Much like Mohammed and Genghis Khan, whose Empires I have discussed with some detail in previous posts, Qin’s take-over was largely aided by the failure of the weak and corrupt aristocracy that preceded his rule. All three of these men abolished the previous class system and established a firm meritocracy. Interestingly, this is literally what an aristocracy is. The word’s etymological origins are in Greek, “rule by those who are fit for power.” The modern connotation of a heraldic government stems from the belief that good genes make a good ruler, but we know better. Generations of rulers raised without challenges, sheltered by wealth and opulence, simply did not have the skills required to wield power. Unless subjected to rigorous training and demanding education, an aristocracy quickly de-evolves into plutocracy. Other than the obvious difference, a true aristocracy is a government that works to move society forward. A plutocracy, being invested in the present establishment, is naturally going to be highly resistant to any kind of change.
“The warrior aristocracy of the Upper House had been so diluted with successful
cheesemongers that adulteration had become a virtue as highly profitable as adultery.
In the Lower House brains were still esteemed, but they had been interpreted as the
knack of passing examinations.”
-Thien Tao, Aleister Crolwey
Having illustrated the salient points, we come to the crucial question. A distinction is being made between two different ways of approaching history and power. Exactly what is at stake here? Let us assume for the moment that we are all invested in creating significant change. How do we use what we know to develop a strategy to accomplish this?
History is what gives a culture its distinct character. States, cultures, and ethnic groups are no different than individual human beings in this respect, that is to say, the more they assert their differences, the more they come into conflict with others. Aleister Crowley was highly critical of the cultural hegemony he saw being promoted by the British and Americans in Asia and Africa. He saw this quest to ‘make the whole world chew gum’ (to briefly paraphrase) as a threat to authentic culture. By the early 1900s, the west had made a successful effort to expunge any meaningful exchange of ideas from what would be considered acceptable public discourse, and Crowley believed that the result of this cultural castration was banal and trivial, with little of substance to offer the inquisitive mind. However, it can’t be overlooked that the a vibrant culture in which people actively seek to express and manifest their deepest values is going to be a culture in which people come into conflict with each other. These conflicts will erupt into violence.
This is a problem that those in positions of political power have to grapple with in some way or another. Do we hold on to a historical identity that puts us in conflict with other cultures and individuals, eschewing any kind of unified system? A society like that could never possibly achieve any goal higher than the satisfaction of its most basic appetites. Without certain forms of conformity, in language, currency, and various means of measurement, no real progress can be made. There could be no commerce, no scientific discovery, no technological innovation, and no academic accomplishment. These things combined are a large part of what generates a culture’s history.
Then again, what would happen if we seek to eliminate our historical identity and all conform to the same basic standard? A society like that could never possibly achieve any goal higher than the satisfaction of its most basic appetites. Without the driving force provided by our deepest values and beliefs, what motivation would there be to accomplish anything beyond entertaining ourselves and passing the time? This is what is happening in our own culture today. We in the west have radically unprecedented access to information and technology that allows us to create on a level beyond anything imaginable a short twenty years ago, and yet almost all of us lack the motivation to study that information and come to new insights, or to use that technology to create anything new and exciting.
It’s a balancing act between the barbarism of undisciplined emotion and the homogeny of apathy. The question is will that balancing act be controlled and intentional, or will we just react to one crisis after another?
“Peace implies war.
Power implies war.
Harmony implies war.
Victory implies war.
Glory implies war.
Foundation implies war.
Alas! for the Kingdom wherein all these are at war.”
-Liber CCCXXXIII Psalm V, Aleister Crowley
"He buried 460 scholars alive; we have buried forty-six thousand scholars alive... You [intellectuals] revile us for being Qin Shi Huangs. You are wrong. We have surpassed Qin Shi Huang a hundredfold."
-Mao Zedong, on Empire-building
Much like Mohammed and Genghis Khan, whose Empires I have discussed with some detail in previous posts, Qin’s take-over was largely aided by the failure of the weak and corrupt aristocracy that preceded his rule. All three of these men abolished the previous class system and established a firm meritocracy. Interestingly, this is literally what an aristocracy is. The word’s etymological origins are in Greek, “rule by those who are fit for power.” The modern connotation of a heraldic government stems from the belief that good genes make a good ruler, but we know better. Generations of rulers raised without challenges, sheltered by wealth and opulence, simply did not have the skills required to wield power. Unless subjected to rigorous training and demanding education, an aristocracy quickly de-evolves into plutocracy. Other than the obvious difference, a true aristocracy is a government that works to move society forward. A plutocracy, being invested in the present establishment, is naturally going to be highly resistant to any kind of change.
“The warrior aristocracy of the Upper House had been so diluted with successful
cheesemongers that adulteration had become a virtue as highly profitable as adultery.
In the Lower House brains were still esteemed, but they had been interpreted as the
knack of passing examinations.”
-Thien Tao, Aleister Crolwey
Having illustrated the salient points, we come to the crucial question. A distinction is being made between two different ways of approaching history and power. Exactly what is at stake here? Let us assume for the moment that we are all invested in creating significant change. How do we use what we know to develop a strategy to accomplish this?
History is what gives a culture its distinct character. States, cultures, and ethnic groups are no different than individual human beings in this respect, that is to say, the more they assert their differences, the more they come into conflict with others. Aleister Crowley was highly critical of the cultural hegemony he saw being promoted by the British and Americans in Asia and Africa. He saw this quest to ‘make the whole world chew gum’ (to briefly paraphrase) as a threat to authentic culture. By the early 1900s, the west had made a successful effort to expunge any meaningful exchange of ideas from what would be considered acceptable public discourse, and Crowley believed that the result of this cultural castration was banal and trivial, with little of substance to offer the inquisitive mind. However, it can’t be overlooked that the a vibrant culture in which people actively seek to express and manifest their deepest values is going to be a culture in which people come into conflict with each other. These conflicts will erupt into violence.
This is a problem that those in positions of political power have to grapple with in some way or another. Do we hold on to a historical identity that puts us in conflict with other cultures and individuals, eschewing any kind of unified system? A society like that could never possibly achieve any goal higher than the satisfaction of its most basic appetites. Without certain forms of conformity, in language, currency, and various means of measurement, no real progress can be made. There could be no commerce, no scientific discovery, no technological innovation, and no academic accomplishment. These things combined are a large part of what generates a culture’s history.
Then again, what would happen if we seek to eliminate our historical identity and all conform to the same basic standard? A society like that could never possibly achieve any goal higher than the satisfaction of its most basic appetites. Without the driving force provided by our deepest values and beliefs, what motivation would there be to accomplish anything beyond entertaining ourselves and passing the time? This is what is happening in our own culture today. We in the west have radically unprecedented access to information and technology that allows us to create on a level beyond anything imaginable a short twenty years ago, and yet almost all of us lack the motivation to study that information and come to new insights, or to use that technology to create anything new and exciting.
It’s a balancing act between the barbarism of undisciplined emotion and the homogeny of apathy. The question is will that balancing act be controlled and intentional, or will we just react to one crisis after another?
“Peace implies war.
Power implies war.
Harmony implies war.
Victory implies war.
Glory implies war.
Foundation implies war.
Alas! for the Kingdom wherein all these are at war.”
-Liber CCCXXXIII Psalm V, Aleister Crowley