For the last half year I've been looking into possible dynamic parallels between the Christian takeover of Roman politics with our current Wokeism political & institutional takeover. The main idea supposition is rooted in Peter Turchin's elite overproduction model for secular dynamics. This is a predictive model for great awakening cycles. In case you didn't notice - we're in a major one.
I've enjoyed the non-technical Fall of Civilizations podcasts. The images (in those that have them) are great.
I've started to go through the classic Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, but its not terribly good. Maybe you just need to be in the mood for its type of romp.
My latest big find is Gabriel Gardan's The Relationship Between Church and State during the 4th Century. It's a very nice find. Beyond getting the reference for the main 4th century historian (Glen Thompson), it has a number of very dynamically relevant quotes.
The first signals of the cruel Christians persecution started in the Eastern part of the Empire, where Diocletian and Galerius governed during the year 298. Under the pretext of purging the army of any dangerous elements, a significant number of Christian soldiers were martyred. Around the year 300 the loyalty of the soldiers became a capital matter for the imperial politics. In this context the Caesar Galerius in the East and Maximian in the West started promoting their anti-Christian politics. As a result of their refusal to participate to the acts of sacrifice, the Christian soldiers were to be accused of lack of loyalty towards the Empire and its leaders. Moreover, the failure of the worshiping acts was attributed to the presence of the Christian soldiers at these sacrifices, where they would mark their own foreheads with theeternal sign”
The nice bit of info here is how signs of oblations were used to marginalize Christians. Basically their refusal to perform normal societal rituals threatened social stability. It's akin to refusing to stand for the national anthem.
But we have to be careful not to look for exact parallels. For instance while Wokeism is a start up religion of equality, much like Christianity was, this does not mean we should look for our political states to use oblation tests to oppress wokeism. While you could stretch that parallel with 1950's McCarthyism, the dynamical parallel is simply the fact that simple display commitment tests tend to get used to purify the large group. In this sense, I tend to see wokeism performing these functions. Biden's recent and unprecedented military purge has these hallmarks. You will soon be required to make very dubios faith-like pledges to prove your woke / anti-white/conservative bonafides.
On the 23rd of February 303 the Christian cathedral of Nicomedia was devastated, and the following day an edict was made public stipulating that the followers of the Christian religion could no longer occupy the designated official functions and dignities. The Christian churches had to be demolished, the Scriptures and the religious books were to be burnt, the liturgical vessels were to be confiscated, and the meetings were forbidden. In order to stop any complaints regarding these regular abuses, the complaints brought in front of the judges had to be preceded by acts of sacrifice on altars placed at the entrance of the judging courts. The ones that refused to apostasy were punished, and the punishment was always an exemplary one
Exemplary punishments are an obvious dynamical parallel. But this tends to be fairly common with any authoritarian reaction. As states get larger, punishments need to be more symbolic. The Soviet Union and Maoist China certainly realized this.
In terms of modern politicized Wokeism, we see a similar dynamic of "reach prevention". Social media giants are doing just this to conservative identities. The gathering of such groups will gradually be outlawed as "hate speech". We already see some very one sided protest prosecutions using Covid's convenient scape-goating. The dynamic similarity with court systems is also very interesting. You need to make the right oblations to be given standing. The DC swamp is certainly heading that way.
Here we see how common spaces were used to enforce litmus tests. You can imagine woke slogans and "don't enter if you're a white supremacist" signs fulfilling the same function today. You just have to remember that dynamical parallels don't imply equal action intensity. Life was values very differently in the 4th century than today. We're looking for dynamical parity. That should give us insight into evolution landscapes.
As Constantine takes over we start to see him settling the differences between Christian sects. Constantine expressed his belief that “the greater the honor towards divinity, the greater the goodness manifested regarding the public matters, and from the letters of the convocation of the synods against the Donatists, there resulted the belief promoted by Constantine regarding his duty, which was to make sure that the problems of the Church were solved by free consent during the assembly of the bishops19. The measures adopted in favor of the Church aimed at two main levels: the life of Church itself and the relations of the Church with the world, with pagans and with the Jews.
Constantine likely used the reconciliation process to favour sects that moved his political agenda. Need the black vote, let's favour the reparations branch of wokeism over ANTIFA goons.
The other interesting feature of Christian political takeover is the establishment of two judicial streams. Bishops were empowered to act as judges for Chirstian matters. This is a very anti-Roman thing to do (ie one law for every citizen). It is rather reminiscent of Canada's restorative justice path. The US is almost certain to follow suit. Thought crimes may be able to be minimally punished in a Constitutional democracy like the US with explicit free speech protections, but you can certainly set up some extra legal institutions - at least if you want to keep your public standing (ie a functional social credit score).
Constantine did not limit himself to these measures. He started to interfere with the doctrinaire problems of the Church. The problem was brought forth by the dissident Donatist branch of the Church in North Africa which stated that the emperor should judge and intervene in the internal disagreements. There was in history a precedent in this sense. The eastern bishops were in a dispute with the heretic Paul of Samosata, and asked the emperor Aurelian to settle the dispute. Aurelian established a precedent himself, by bringing the problem to the attention and the judging of the bishop of Rome and soliciting a solution. Initially Constantine intended to adopt a similar solution, and in the year 313, he asked the bishop Miltiades of Rome to judge the matter. The protests of the Donatists determined him to establish another precedent, this time around in favor of the Church, and decided to summon a synod at Arelate, in the year 314, where bishops from the West were invited to participate and analyze the doctrinaire and disciplinary dissensions that divided the Church in the North of Africa.
Here we can see an obvious Biden move. Instead of judging maters via State systems, turn it over to Woke institutions/mobs like the NAACP, ACLU, and SPLC. Then just follow their edict. But, put some government officials into the "discourse" so control is maintained, albeit at arms reach from normal political safeguards.
Following this line of precedents, we must mention alongside Constantine’s decision to summon the synod, another precedent which targeted the assurance of the necessary means for the travel of the bishops in order to reach an optimal development of the activity of the synod. Due to the fact that the decisions of this synod were not accepted by the Donatists, Constantine went further and acted by force, via imperial decrees and via the armed hand of the state, in order to reestablish the order in the Church28. Harold Drake believes that it is not exaggerated to consider that the formal relations between the Church and the Roman Empire follow directly the steps Constantine followed in order to solve the controversy. The Donatists episode revealed Constantine’s option and his involvement in the life of the Church in general, and especially in the theological disputes.
Here we more clearly see theological reconciliations being used to shape Church growth, presumably according to Constantines desired political reformation strategic plan. Thus, we'd expect to see a Harris (if she's competent enough - Biden is too demetia'ed out to be functional here) or some other Left leaning political figure like Pelosi start to settle Woke 'theological' disputes as a way of exerting power and filtering out political opponents.
The main idea is that this process ensures the stability of Church-state. The leaders can rationalize any power movements as creating a better future. This type of utopian thinking is a classic trap for hard core authoritarians like Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc.
What apparently spells disaster is pluralism.
In the year 337, at Constantine’s death, the governance of the Empire was taken over by his three sons: Constantine II (337-340), Constantius II (337-361) and Constant 194(337-350). Their reign is marked by political and ecclesiastic confusion. From the point of view of the church, the period overlaps with the second stage of the Arian crisis. Their religious politics was confusing: on the one hand they continued their father’s tendency to favor and privilege Christianity; on the other hand they interfered more and more with the Arian theological disputes, manifesting equivocal attitudes towards the heretics, intentionally ignoring sometimes the decisions of the synods. The most faithful image of this period is represented by the case of the intransigent Nicene bishop Athanasius, dismissed and put back in his chair, exiled, self-exiled, blamed and adulated.
From an evolutionary point of view focussed on adaptive groups, you want to look for unique benefits provided to the group being favoured. For example, we are now heading to two tiered justice - certain minorities whose political intersection matches the states, are increasingly likely to get "free passes" (at least if they get the right public 'reach'. Those who commit crimes against protected groups now get 'hate' enhancements - right now sometimes regardless of racial intent.
the Jews were not allowed to buy Christians as slaves (CT 16 .9.2); the sons of the clergy young and poor were exempt from some public obligations (CT 16.2.11); tax exempts and other privileges of the clergy were confirmed and extended (CT 16.2.8-9). Special laws that bring new elements are the ones regarding the pagans. In the year 341 the pagan sacrifices were forbidden, and in the year 346 the temples of the cities were closed (CT 16.10.2-4). The situation did not register significant changes after 350 when Constantius II remained the only leader of the Empire. He continued to promote laws favoring Christianity and the Church: some properties of the clergy were exempt from taxes (CT 16.2.10); the capital punishment was established for the ones that raped widows and nuns (CT 9.25.1); all the properties of the Church were exempts from taxes (CT 11.1.1); the monks were exempt from the state obligations (CT 16.2.16). The legislation against pagans and Jews became more and more restrictive and the Christians that were converted to paganism were to lose their properties (CT 16.8.7);
Here's one example of how the modern parallels are working.... (but note, this particular video is light on the religious side of things).
No comments:
Post a Comment