Sacred Kingship

 

The Sun, being the illuminating faculty of the limitless Sky, has been a symbol of divine-sanctioned rulership in Europe and Asia since time immemorial.

We have spoken much about the ancient pan-Eurasian aspects of culture, mythology and religion, but little on politics itself. As the reader will discover, the ancient political orders of various civilizations across Eurasia, as well as their descendants, were intimately related, indeed inseparable, from their religion and spiritual worldview. Unsurprisingly, the concept of "separation of church and state" did not exist to them. But, as might be a little harder for a modern person to conceive, neither can their political order be described as a sort of "alliance" or "partnership" of political and religious institutions, as was the case in medieval and early modern Europe up to the French Revolution. Instead, ancients from Rome to China, Persia to Japan all had a political order in which religious institutions were not distinct from political institutions. In other words, the church was the state, and the state the church. The King or Emperor was simultaneously a political office and religious office; at once he was both a ruler and a priest. To even begin discussing the vast diversity of Eurasian political systems and governmental types and their usefulness, this is the first thing we must keep in mind.

Next, it is necessary to go over a few of the basics of the Eurasian religion and spiritual worldview. From there we can get into how they translate into society as a whole, including government. The fundamentals can be boiled down more or less to two: one, the worship of a supreme sky father deity; and two, a nature-oriented spirituality which had shamanism as its motive force.

Anyone who has conducted even a cursory comparative glance at the religions of (pre-Christian) Europe and Asia, including Central Asia, notices almost immediately that they held the sky, Heaven, to be the supreme deity. In most cases, this sky divinity took the form of a paternalistic deity associated with brightness, force and the masculine yang principle. Among the Proto-Indo-Europeans, this deity was known as Dyeus Phter, which later became the Greek Zeus, Roman Jupiter, Germanic Tyr and Indo-Aryan Dyaus Pitar. The Altaic people, including Mongols, Turks and Tungusics, worshiped an almost identical god called Tengri, whose name is likely cognate with Dyeus (and possibly the Sumerian god Dingir). Sinitic people also had such a god, which they probably picked up from contact with the Altaics, known as Tian, another likely cognate with Dyeus and Tengri. As we will see later, that the ancients believed the sky, which embodied the supreme metaphysical principle, was ruled over by a patriarchal father figure, had what can only be described as a profound impact on how they thought earthly social and political affairs ought to be handled.

Second, the character of many ancient Eurasian religions can most accurately be described as nature-oriented and shamanistic. Let us look at these two facets individually. Nature-oriented means that Nature, including natural phenomena, geographic features and all life itself, occupies a position of deep reverence. The might of Nature, its ability to create both prosperity and disaster, to heal and to kill, meant that it was a divine force worthy of fear and respect. The ancient tribes that adhered to this worldview thus took Nature itself, along with its myriads of manifestations, to be objects of worship and artifacts of a superphysical reality. Today this idea is known as animism, and its basic principle was that there are millions of manifold spirits which occupy various awe-inspiring manifestations of nature. These spirits are said to dwell in anything from lightning to old trees, from mountains even down to tiny plants. Anything, the circumstances of the existence of which are profound and inexplicable, may be a vessel for one or more of these spirits. Further, these spirits have the ability to influence human affairs through supernatural means. Because of this, it was necessary for humans to have a channel of communication with them, and this is where the idea of shamanism comes into play. The shaman is an office whose purpose is to commune with the Nature spirits, in order to learn the minds of them, and to let them know the minds of humans. These two important concepts of animism and shamanism are found all throughout Eurasia, and although they have been continuously diluted over the years due to the introduction of foreign religions and eventually atheism, we are able to see traces of them fossilized here and there. We are also able to learn about them by checking the history books which detail the belief systems of ancient nations. There are a few cases where this worldview has been faithfully preserved even to the present day. Japanese Shintoism is by far the best example of this. While I would love to go into more detail of the ancient Eurasian religions, this cursory glance will suffice for now.

Shintoism is easily the best-preserved form of the ancient Eurasian animist-shamanist religion.

Keeping these fundamentals of Eurasian religion close in mind, let us continue with our discussion. It is easy to see that the religious worldviews of a people influence to no insignificant extent the workings of their society and its governance. Not so obvious, but no less important, is how. Ancient Eurasian groups held the belief that there were two worlds: the physical world, which we inhabit; and the superphysical world, which exists prior to and superior to the physical world. Evola in Revolt Against the Modern World summarizes it almost perfectly:

In order to understand both the spirit of Tradition and its antithesis, modern civilization, it is necessary to begin with the fundamental doctrine of the two natures. According to this doctrine there is a physical order of things and a metaphysical one; there is a mortal nature and an immortal one; there is the superior realm of "being" and the inferior realm of "becoming". Generally speaking, there is a visible and tangible dimension and, prior to and beyond it, an invisible and intangible dimension that is the support, the source, and true life of the former.¹

What is important, beyond the fact that there exists something outside of what we conventionally perceive as reality, is that what belongs to that realm is superior to reality, and exists prior to reality. We can think of this in the same way we think of a shadow. Consider a shadow and the object which is projecting it. Both are real, but only one exists as the true object; the other merely belongs to the category of an image. The real object exists prior to its shadow; it is the essence of the shadow and determines its shape. The shadow does not exist on its own, but rather its existence is dependent upon the actual object. In the same way, the superphysical world is all that truly exists; the material realm is merely the projection of that superior world, which determines its characteristics and transformations. As Evola put it, the physical world "becomes", i.e. changes, whereas the superphysical world remains constant, it "is", just as a shadow changes conformation when the object is rotated with no change of its own. In this way the physical world is dependent upon the superphysical world. It does not exist meaningfully on its own, because all of its meaning and animation originates within the superphysical world. This is why we say that the superphysical world is superior to and prior to the material world.

While these statements are highly objectionable to those minds which are of materialist or atheist persuasion, in ancient times in civilizations across Europe and Asia, they were considered to be fundamental fact. To them, the superphysical world is more real than the material world, because the bodies that inhabited it are pure and immortal, unlike the evanescent forms of our world which are susceptible to decay and erosion. The ancients accorded to this fact in all ways possible, including within the sphere of social and political formulations. In general there arose the notion that there is a kind of symmetry that exists between these two worlds, and in this way Earthly institutions were based off of Heavenly prototypes. The cosmic order was seen as a more authentic and original version of the societal order, and thus the latter was designed in the image of the former.

The Big Dipper revolves around Polaris according to the seasons. This image, which is the origin of the Swastika symbol, served as a metaphor for an omnipotent and invulnerable leader who, like the axle of a wagon wheel, remained stationary while the world moved about him.

The ancient Eurasian notion that Heavenly prototypes were the point of origin for Earthly systems and phenomena is not limited to the sphere of governance at all, however, to keep within the scope of this article, I will limit my discussion there. If you recall from above, there was the view that Heaven was ruled by a supreme father deity, a cosmic paterfamilias. This view was extrapolated, leading to the idea that human polities ought to be run in a similar fashion, with a supreme sage King at the top, surrounded by various subordinate ministers. The Heavenly analogue of this system becomes clear when we consider the star Polaris, around which all other stars and constellations revolve. Confucius, who advocated vehemently for the ancient order, said of governance:

子曰：「為政以德，譬如北辰，居其所而眾星共之。」
Confucius said: "The one who conducts government with virtue is like Polaris. While it stays in one place, the sundry stars revolve around it."²

What, then, is this so-called "virtue"? The word virtue is derived from the Latin vir, "man", hence virtus, "manliness, virility". The Chinese 德 de has a more or less identical meaning. In essence, virtue refers to possession of the transcendent masculine energy which is exemplified by the sky and the sky deity. Thus, the one who is virtuous is like Polaris, moving others without himself moving, omnipotent and invincible. On Earth men corresponded to this celestial prototype in order to tap into the supreme cosmic principle and utilize it in transcending conventional animalistic existence. Man is a being with two natures mixed inside of him: the animal nature and the god nature. Like all other animals, man is a creature of flesh; he must intake food and drink to sustain himself, and decays with age until death. However, unlike all other animals, man is gifted with intelligence, which is intangible and immortal. Like gods, which are beings of pure intellect, men can originate concepts and notions, and act according to will instead of instinct. The purpose of imitating the Heavens was for man to depart the meaningless world of flesh, shedding his animal nature, and become initiated into the meaningful world of pure being, embracing the divine half of his nature. When we inspect history, we find that this path, in almost all cases, lead straight to the institution of the Holy Monarchy.

As mentioned at the start of the article, what we mean by Holy Monarchy is that ancient form of government found throughout Eurasia in which there was no differentiation between religious institutions and political institutions. Generally, the state itself was the vehicle of religion, and rituals and sacrifices were functions of the government. In addition to employing standard civil and military officials, shamans and priests were employed to convene with the spirits on behalf of the entire nation. And at the top of the hierarchy of civil and military officials, there was the King, the chief official, who was simultaneously at the top of the hierarchy of shamans and priests, the chief shaman. In this way the King was the shepherd both of the nation's bodies and of its souls, a ruler who by his sheer virtue and sagacity was answerable only to the ancestors, the other various gods, and the supreme God of the Sky himself. In addition to being the image of the supreme Sky Father God projected onto the Earth, a microcosmic shadow of the macrocosmic ruler, the King was also the link between the world of mortals and the world of gods. To borrow a Roman epithet, he was the pontifex, "builder of bridges". Finally, the King was viewed as man who was equivalent to a god who had come to the Earth. In other words, the King was seen as a god in a human's body, owing to his initiation in an art which had its origins in Heaven. This Art of Kingship granted the King the ability to rule without violence, like Polaris, to move without movement, 為無為 wei wu wei, with an authority comparable to that which might be enjoyed by a literal god who had hypothetically transferred to the Earth. This is the true meaning of virtue and 德 de, and was believed to be passed on from father to son. That is to say, it was "genetic" (although it could eventually become lost due to the degeneration of the lineage). This is the origin of the theme, likewise found all across Eurasia, of Kings and Emperors who are said to be possessors of divine blood, descendants of the gods themselves.

This abstract formulation presents itself more or less constantly throughout Eurasia, among the Indo-Europeans, the Altaics and the races which either are their descendants or came into close interaction with them. Though there naturally emerged new strands of independent development over the years. Let us look at a few local examples, to further explain and illustrate the Eurasian Priest-King.

Greece

Zeus, the god of lightning and the ruler of Heaven.

Zeus is the Greek descendant of the Indo-European god Dyeus Phter. When the IE people moved into the area in and around Greece, they found it inhabited by another people, likely related to those who were responsible for the Minoan civilization at its height in 2nd and 3rd millennia BC. This not-so-well defined group and its constituents were later referred to as Pelasgians, and they were a stock completely different than their IE conquerors. A common reoccurring theme in the history of European and Asian peoples is the conquest of a lethargic, sedentary agricultural race by an energetic, nomadic pastoralist race, which seems to have been the case in Greece. But along with a different lifestyle and language, the conquerors also brought a new religion. The maternalistic, Earth-centric religion of the Pelasgians, which later cropped up again in the form of Pythagoreanism, was largely displaced by the paternalistic, Heaven-centric religion of the Indo-Europeans.

Ancient Greek kingship had its basis in the conception of Zeus as the "King of the Gods". As we will see with the Chinese, there existed a "Heavenly Court" on Mount Olympus which mirrored the royal courts of the Earth. Considering this, it is not surprising that human Kings were said to receive their legitimacy and right to kingship from Zeus himself. What was called θέμις themis was generally understood as a judgement originating from Heaven. The plural of themis, θέμῐστες themistes were the "divine judgements" which were dispatched by Heaven to Kings, granting them the right to rule. In this way, themis is strikingly similar to the Chinese concept of 天命 tianming, the "Mandate of Heaven" which legitimized dynasties. Unlike what the Marxist historians will have us believe, political legitimacy in ancient times was not based on material circumstances--the accumulation of wealth, military prowess, etc.--rather it was contingent on the approval of Heavenly authorities. Such propitious material conditions were secondary; they were a result of Heavenly approval. In Greece, that Heavenly judge was Zeus himself.

Inseparable from the concept of Zeus-ordained rule was the notion, as in other Eurasian societies, that Kings, especially the legendary founders of certain cities, tribes and dynasties, were directly descended from the gods themselves. This is in line with the doctrine I expounded above, that rulers held a secret and immaterial power which could be passed on from one generation to the next, and which ultimately has its origins in Heaven. This is derived from the mythohistoric legends of heroes, such as Achilles and Perseus, who were the demigod offspring of gods. For generations rulers would claim descent from such heroes and thus from the gods themselves, in order to legitimize their rule. These claims, regardless of whether they had grounds in truth, had value as metaphors for the Kingly virtue that was hereditary and originated in Heaven.

China

 The Temple of Heaven (天壇), where the Son of Heaven used to perform grand sacrifices and ceremonies.

The Middle Kingdom, a name which itself conjures up an image of a Regnum situated between Heaven and Earth, is the first example I would recommend to anyone looking for concrete manifestations of the pan-Eurasian formulation of sacred Kingship. This is because it was delicately preserved for thousands of years with little modification, in addition its massive corpus of detailed written material from ancient times. The theoretical framework of Chinese Kingship had been laid down thousands of years before the first Imperial dynasty was even founded. However, it can be said that it fully matured into the form we are most familiar with at the beginning of the Zhou (周) dynasty. The very foundation of the Zhou political order rested in the Mandate of Heaven (天命, tianming). This can most accurately be summarized as a Heavenly judgement or decree which states that a certain dynasty has the right to rule the Empire. As we have said early, Tian is most likely the same Sky Father God as that worshiped by the Altaics and Indo-Europeans. His resemblance to, for instance, Zeus is quite pronounced considered how his approval and his decrees served to legitimize the right of the King to rule. The founders of the Zhou dynasty, the legendary Kings Wen (文王) and Wu (武王) were believed to have gained the Mandate after it was apparently lost by the corrupt last King of the Shang (商) dynasty, King Zhou (紂王). Thereafter, they defeated the Shang forces in battle and established the new dynasty. Tian was enshrined as the supreme God of the Zhou people, and the King served as his representative on the Earth.

In addition to being the possessor of Heaven's Mandate, the King also possessed the immaterial masculine Kingly power known to the Chinese as 德 de. The Zhou royal family traced their ancestry back the the legendary founder of Chinese civilization, Huangdi, who by that time was revered as a god in his own right. Thus the new Zhou dynasty had inherited that de from the ancient sage Kings, which further served to legitimize their rule, and this Royal Art was likely seen as the instrument the Zhou founders used to rise up and overthrow the tyranny of the Shang dynasty. Their descent from ancient sage Kings and, through them, ultimately the gods of Heaven themselves is perhaps why the Zhou Kings were known as 天子 Tianzi, literally, "Sons of Heaven", an epithet which accurately captures their role as living vessels of Heaven's will. This title would became standard for the Emperors of China for the next two thousand years, in part due to the fact that subsequent dynasties (except the Qin) sought to imitate the Zhou dynasty and carry on its legacy.

Throughout Chinese history, the religious duties of the Son of Heaven were just as numerous as his temporal duties. As the chief steward of the nation in all spiritual affairs, he was responsible for the grand sacrifices to Heaven and other gods. There were massive temples dedicated to ceremonies the Emperor was required to carry out, such as the famous Temple of Heaven in Beijing. Such faith and gravity was placed in the Emperor's person and his carrying out the ceremonies properly, that even a minor mistake or irregularity in the procedure was seen as foretelling great disaster. The Emperor prayed to Heaven to bring about propitious conditions for the nation and its people--rain for crops, bountiful harvests, etc.--and to avert natural disasters. These were all said to be the work of the Nature spirits and, ultimately, of Heaven itself. The Son of Heaven was also responsible for showing due reverence to the ancestral spirits of his dynasty, who, as in many other Eurasian societies, were seen as gods capable of increasing or decreasing the fortunes of the Empire. In this way, the Chinese Son of Heaven perfectly fits an epithet such as pontifex.

Japan

The Meiji (明治) Emperor, reigned 1868-1912.

Finally, let us take a look at Japan. Now Japan is notable for having the world's longest reigning royal family, which is traditionally dated back to 660 BC. Further, it is believed that the first Emperor, Jimmu (神武), was descended from the Sun Goddess, Amaterasu-Oomikami (天照大御神). Another item of note for Japan is its relative deviance from the standard pan-Eurasian paradigm, possibly owing to the influence of numerous ethnic substrates which combined in that country in ancient times. Rather than having a paternal Sky Deity, the Japanese worshiped the Sun Goddess, whose name can be roughly translated as the "Illuminator of Heaven". Though she can still be understood as a bright, Heavenly force, and the source of the cosmic order just as in other Eurasian societies. According to mythology, Amaterasu sent her grandson, Ninigi-no-Mikoto (瓊瓊杵尊) to the Earth to set up rule. He was sent with the Imperial Regalia: the sword Kusanagi no Tsurugi (草薙劍), the mirror Yata no Kagami (八咫鏡), and the jewel Yasakani no Magatama (八尺瓊勾玉). These artifacts, which have been preserved even to the present day, are said to have played various roles in Japanese mythology. They were eventually passed on to Jimmu, who during his reign moved the capital and in the process subjugated various other tribes. The Imperial Regalia are thus physical embodiments of the Emperor's divine ancestry and the de or virtue inherited since prehistoric times.

As the physical representative of the Heavenly order on Earth, the Japanese Emperor (天皇, tennо̄, lit. "Heavenly Emperor") had perhaps even more religious duties than the Chinese Emperor. He performed worship and prayer to the numerous kami, which can be understood as gods or Nature spirits, for such things as propitious weather and good harvests. In addition to this, the Emperor was also responsible for reporting major national events and worldly happenings to the high gods at their shrines. In historical times, there were thousands of gods which were officially venerated by the Imperial household, and this was all a matter of public legal policy. For instance, the Engi-shiki (927) contains a list of 3,132 kami for which official Imperial ceremonies and worship were prescribed. In the cases of the largest and most important shrines, members of the Imperial household often served as priests and priestesses. For example, the Ise Grand Shrine, the holiest site in Japan, where the Sun Goddess is enshrined, for centuries had an Imperial princess serving as high priestess. After the Meiji Restoration in the 19th century, when what is commonly known as "State Shinto" emerged, these high priest positions at the Ise Grand Shrine and numerous other shrines were often filled by the Emperor himself. Thus it is clear that the Emperor was the nation's primary mediator between the physical world and the superphysical world; his person was the living link between the people and the spirits. In this way, the Emperor can be described as the chief shaman.

Being, as the Chinese sovereign, the representative of the Heavenly order on Earth, it only made sense that he was the steward of these and many other important religious duties. However, unlike his Chinese counterpart, who theoretically could lose Heaven's Mandate, the Japanese Emperor's position as such a representative was made iron-clad by virtue of his divine ancestry. That is why, even throughout thousands of years of history, Japan has continually been ruled by the same Imperial family. Although there are periods of history, such as the famous times of Shogun and Samurai (and, indeed, our own postwar era), when the Emperor's true power was limited, he was always revered without question as the spiritual head of the Empire and the symbol of the Nation. He was and still is above politics and above mundane life itself. The Emperor was seen and even worshiped as a divinity in his own right, because his very person could only be considered the will of Heaven congealed in flesh and bones. The Japanese people held this attitude with great conviction until the end of World War II, when the Americans forced them to give up their Traditional, Heaven-oriented worldview and accept one of materialism, secularism and democracy. Even so, the Emperor remains the only Monarch in the world who can claim the heritage, dignity and glory of the supremely ancient pan-Eurasian worldview and its reverence of Heaven, the Sun, the Ancestors and Nature.

Conclusion

The most ancient and most authentic Eurasian political order can best be described as one headed by a Holy Monarch. According to uncountable ancient traditions from across Europe and Asia, this Monarch possessed a power or an art which was transmitted to him by the gods of Heaven themselves, by which those gods granted him the right to rule a state. This all has its foundations in the Eurasian spiritual worldview, which is one of deep reverence of Nature and worship of Heaven as the primary energetic force in the Universe. According to this doctrine, the Sacred King was at once a King and a Priest; he was both the chief minster and chief shaman. He not only guided the people but also served as their link between this world and the world of the gods. In this article I described this system as implemented in three different ancient civilizations from different parts of Eurasia: Greece, China and Japan. These three nations I selected because of their great renown and their clear, unmistakable practice of these principles. However, they are far from being the only ones. I encourage the reader to do his or her own research further into subjects as these. In doing so he or she will, I guarantee, find that virtually every civilization which carried on the true ways of the ancient Eurasian seed-race implemented this worldview, even if it has been diluted over thousands of years.

Those who today make it their mission to carry on the ancient ways cannot do without the study of these systems and formulations, and how their implementation varied from country to country. For those of us who embrace the common heritage of all Eurasia, this is indispensable.

Footnotes

1. Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World (Rochester, 1995), page 3.
2. 論語 2.1 (The Analects 2.1)
   

An Lushan: the Hapa Warrior who Almost Conquered China

An Lushan (安禄山, 703-753), the Hapa general-turned-rebel who founded the (short lived) Yan Dynasty

It is all too common that modern people in their haughty, holier-than-thou ignorance carry far too many misconceptions about the past. They have deemed themselves to be living in the best time period in all of history, a "Golden Age" of humanity, a "peak" of civilizational achievement, and that the past was nothing but a dark, backwards world of endless war, poverty, disease and hatred. They proudly proclaim the intellectual superiority of their modern, materialist sciences over the "superstition and religious bigotry" of the ancients, condescendingly referring to their own forebears by such descriptors as "primitive", "uncivilized", and indeed, "barbarian".

One such misconception regards Eurasian/Hapa people, who are widely believed to be a purely modern conception, the result of racial integration in Western countries or the sexual adventures of White men. Indeed if you were to ask the likes of r/hapas about "Hapa History", the only things they would talk about would be "Western colonialism", or the numerous Hapas born to the Dutch, Spanish and Americans who came to Asia from time to time over the past few centuries. However, History, with its several millennia, tends to transcend the feeble boundaries of their overly-narrow worldview. In fact, I think it is safe to say that as long as European and Asian people have existed, there have Hapas born out of their interracial unions. For thousands of years, Central Asia has logically been ground zero for many such unions, and while they certainly were not common, there are a few cases where Hapas have risen through the ranks of society and etched their name into History.

Today, we will be looking at perhaps the most famous of those cases: An Lushan.

Though virtually unknown in the West, most Chinese know him as the man whose rebellion and the ten years of chaos that followed are considered among the (several) major dramas of the Tang dynasty. But what many don't pay attention to is the fact that he was a Hapa, perhaps the first Hapa to ever have his name and life story recorded in the history books. An Lushan is widely believed to have been born to a Gokturk mother and a Sogdian father in the year 703. Now the Gokturks, who just centuries early ruled the Gokturk Empire, were an Asiatic Altaic people, whereas the Sogdians were one of the eastern branches of the Iranic sub-family of Indo-European. This would make Lushan a Hapa. While there are doubts as to whether his father (who died early) truly was Sogdian, these can be put to rest definitively by analyzing his name. The surname An (安) was used by people from the Sogdian kingdom of Bukhara (安国, Anguo, non-Han people typically took the name of their homeland as a surname in Chinese), and his given name is without a doubt Iranic in origin. Lushan, or Roχšan as it would have been known in Iranic, means 'the Bright One', and was a common name in Sogdia. The name Roχšan is likely related to Roxana, which was the name of Alexander the Great's Sogdian wife. Centuries earlier, when Alexander and his Greek army conquered much of central Asia, he had his men take local wives, so it is possible An Lushan was even the descendant of Alexander or one of the Greeks in his army.

After An's father died, his mother married a Turkic general, but he eventually ended up in Ying Prefecture of the Tang Dynasty. For much of his earlier life, An was involved in the weapons dealing business, and this is likely where he met his lifelong friend and later fellow rebel, the Gokturk Shi Suguan. An is said to have known six languages in addition to Chinese, which would have proved invaluable in the weapons trade. He was an interpreter who helped the Tang government trade silk to foreigners in exchange for horses as part of the Silk Road. An's career as an official began in a rather unconventional fashion. Having been caught stealing sheep, he was sentenced to death by the local authorities, however, when they heard his plea to be spared, and saw his impressive strength, they gave him and Shi jobs as police officers. From here on out, he continued to rise through the military bureaucracy and eventually attained to the rank of general. However, after going against the orders of his superior, Zhang Shougui, he was sent to the capital, Chang'an, for punishment. The penalty for such an offense was typically death, however, Emperor Xuanzong (唐玄宗) was impressed with An and confident in his abilities. He was pardoned, but stripped of his rank and sent back to work for Zhang. Nonetheless, he began to reclimb the hierarchy.

 Tang Xuanzong (685-762)

Later on in 741, he ingratiated himself with one of the Imperial Censors, who returned to Chang'an filled with words of praise for An. When Emperor Xuanzong heard of this, he promoted An further, making him the commander of the Pinglu Army and the commandant of Ying Prefecture. In 742, he was again promoted, this time to jiedushi, one of the highest military offices. The next year, he came to Chang'an to pay homage to the Emperor, and almost immediately began getting involved in court life and politics. To much of the court, An must have been viewed with a great deal of suspicion; he was not Chinese, but some "barbarian" warrior from one of the strange states of the western fringes of the Tang Empire. His half-Caucasoid appearance definitely would have seemed exotic. However, the Emperor continued to shower An with favor, taking him to be wholly loyal. Perhaps we might imagine that the Tang Emperor's belief in the superiority of Chinese civilization over the "barbarians" led him to underestimate An and the potential threat he posed. An continued to gain the trust of the Emperor; he was even allowed to enter and leave the palace as he pleased. Eventually he began to ingratiate himself with Emperor Xuanzong's favorite concubine, Yang Guifei (楊貴妃), one of the Four Beauties of ancient China. There were even rumors that he was carrying on an affair with Yang. To further show his dedication to the Emperor, he asked Yang to become her adopted son, taking the Emperor to be his "adoptive father".

 Yang Guifei (719-756), painting by Hosoda Eishi (1756–1829)

It seems that trust of An Lushan eventually began to extend beyond the Emperor. In 744, the result of praise from chancellor Li Linfu, An was made the military governor of Fanyang Circuit, situated on the northern border of the empire. With proximity to the numerous Altaic tribes that live to the north of China, An regularly led campaigns against them in order to exhibit his military might. He continued to receive promotions and titles from the Emperor. In 747, An was given the title Yushi Daifu (a high ranking censorial position). A further illustration of just how central he had become in the Tang state is that his wife, named Duan, was promoted to Lady, a title shared by none less than the sisters of Yang Guifei. Finally, in 750, he was created the Prince of Dongping, becoming the first general who did not belong to the Imperial Li family--not to mention the first non-Chinese--to receive the honor of being created a prince. An now enjoyed not only a life of luxury and favor in the capital, but also the valuable privilege of proximity to the Emperor and Yang Guifei.

That an outsider to the Imperial court, and indeed, to China, could reach such heights certainly inspired jealousy and wrath in the other officials. Rivalries began to brew with An, most notably between Yang Guozhong, the second cousin of Yang Guifei. Despite occasionally butting heads with various ministers and generals, An remained loyal to the Emperor on account of their deep friendship. However, because others treated him with suspicion or even contempt while only the Emperor and a handful of ministers showed him favor, it is likely the An felt alienated and found it hard to be loyal towards anybody else. This is where many historians believe An began ideating rebellion. Knowing that the Emperor would die eventually, An was, not unreasonably, apprehensive to accept whoever his successor would be; indeed, his loyalty seemed directed towards the Emperor alone. Things did not get better. In 753, Li Linfu, the chancellor with whom An had a good relationship, died, and was replaced with Yang Guozhong. Yang, knowing that even with his position as chancellor he could not control An, began to perceive him as an even greater threat. Hoping to nip the problem in the bud, Yang repeatedly memorialized the Emperor saying that An was actively plotting rebellion. Yang convinced the Emperor that if he summoned An to the capital, he would not come, proving his theory. However, when the Emperor summoned An to test this out, An came immediately. The Emperor's trust in An remained strong, although Yang and his allies, who never fell out of the Emperor's favor, continued to heap accusations upon him.

Come 755, Yang was still convinced An was plotting a rebellion, and began ramping up his anti-An activities, this time with more force. He targeted many of An's friends, staff and associates, raiding An's mansion in Chang'an and having them arrested and executed. An was not pleased. Thereafter, the official relationship between An and the Tang government began to decline. He ceased attending official functions and submitting gifts into the capital, and finally began to ignore the Emperor's summons. In winter of the same year, An Lushan formally launched his rebellion, and set out with intention of capturing the capital to depose Yang. He first attacked and succeeded in capturing the eastern capital of Luoyang and routing the Tang generals who were tasked with defending it. The Imperial court at Chang'an was in complete turmoil.

The next year, in Luoyang An formally declared himself the Emperor of the new Yan dynasty. The Tang government's initial reaction cannot be said to have been an effective one. Geshu Han, a powerful general and former rival of An, was having his own disputes with Yang Guozhong. Hoping to dispatch a powerful adversary at the expense of national defense, Yang persuaded the Emperor, against the advice of many strategists, to have Geshu immediately attack the Yan general Cui Qianyou. With no choice, Geshu attacked and was, as expected, quickly defeated and captured. Meanwhile, Yan forces were already encroaching on Chang'an. The Emperor, in a state of panic, fled with Yang Guifei and troops commanded by general Chen Xuanli toward Shu Commandery. However, along the way Chen had his men assassinate Yang Guozhong, whom he believed was responsible for provoking An to rebel. Chen ensured the Emperor that he was still loyal to him, but only if he allowed them to execute Yang Guifei as well. With great reluctance, the Emperor agreed. Because it was not known where the Emperor had fled to, the remaining Tang constituents were forced to declare Crown Prince Li Heng the new Emperor, and he became Emperor Suzong. When Xuanzong found out about this, he yielded to his son and retired from the throne.

A map showing the major troop movements of An's rebellion

However, by now An Lushan was facing declining health. He suffered from a number of ailments, including eye issues and ulcers. Further, he was greatly bereaved, and no less angered, by the death of his son An Qingzong, who was executed along with his family by the Tang authorities after An rebelled. As a result, he spent most of the day inside the palace at Luoyang. There were also problems with selecting a successor. An favored letting his son Qing'en become the Crown Prince, but another son, Qingxu, believed he deserved to be in line for the succession instead of his brother. An Qingxu's lust for the throne would lead to what can only described as an inexcusably shameful and unfilial act. On January 29th, 757, Qingxu and his associates broke into his father's palace and assassinated him. In order to disguise the coup, Qingxu made up the lie that his father was terminally ill, and had appointed him as the Crown Prince. It was then announced that An Lushan had died, and Qingxu swiftly ascended to the throne of Yan. Karma came quick. In 759, An Lushan was avenged by his lifelong friend and co-rebel, Shi Suguan (now renamed Shi Siming), who executed Qingxu, declared himself Emperor and rehabilitated Lushan.

After An's death, the rebellion, aptly named the "Chaos of An and Shi" (安史之亂), would continue until 763, with the Shi family heading the Yan dynasty instead of the An. Although the Hapa Emperor was unsuccessful in completing his conquest of China, his campaign sent ripples through the Empire that would long outlive him. After the rebellion, the Tang dynasty never returned to its prior level of splendor and wealth, which goes to show, as the Romans found out centuries early, it is exceedingly unwise to underestimate so-called "barbarians". Equally unwise is it, in the inverse, to overestimate those who are considered by the predominant paradigm of the time period to be the bearers of civilization. In such a case, one's level of civilization and cultural achievement is completely irrelevant: though one's palaces may be filled with riches, libraries filled with books and paintings and ranks upon ranks of talented scholars may be standing at the ready, but if one cannot defend the borders of the Empire and protect it from reckless and preventable disaster, they are completely meaningless! The pen and the sword must be equally cultivated. A book on strategy is equally as valuable as a volume of poetry. It is absolutely fitting to laud the Tang dynasty for its immeasurable cultural achievements--that Tang culture spread as far as Vietnam and Japan is no accident, and we are not foolish to treasure the works of Li Bai--but, administratively and militarily, the dynasty underwent many episodes of embarrassing failure (I think the incident involving Wu Zetian decades early can also speak to this).

In the final analysis, I think it is unfair for anyone involved in the situation to truly be labeled as in the wrong besides Yang Guozhong. An Lushan was loyal to the Emperor from the beginning; in spite of others' suspicions, his loyalty never waned until Yang repeatedly provoked him. Yang being the chancellor, An could have only perceived these as attacks against him by the entire Tang nation. His loyalty for the Emperor besides, how could he not rebel? An more than likely felt betrayed long before the Emperor did. Emperor Xuanzong certainly was not a wicked ruler, and he was wise in perceiving and employing the talents of An. However, he was not as tough as he should have been when it came to Yang Guozhong. Had the Emperor removed Yang from the government early on, the entire rebellion likely would have been prevented. His inappropriate favor towards Yang can most likely be ascribed to the fact that he was related to Yang Guifei, who was the love of his life. So, although he was not wicked, he was not a strong ruler, allowing his heart to be swayed by ministers and confounded by love for a girl. Like many rulers, he was simply born at the wrong time in History. Yang Guozhong (ironically, his name means 'loyal to the nation'), in contrast, harbored great jealousy and greed, and was not ashamed to resort to deceit, murder and treason to destroy others. Though he claimed to support the Tang dynasty, he showed on at least two occasions that his own personal desires were more important to him than his country: first, when he carelessly provoked An into rebelling; second, when he convinced the Emperor to send Geshu Han into battle despite knowing he would be defeated. These two caused untold preventable suffering on both sides, not to mention the personal grief felt by Lushan for his son Qingzong, and Xuanzong for his beloved Yang Guifei.

 Artist's depiction of An Lushan

Besides all that, this episode of history is also important in the history of Eurasianism because, as we said earlier, An Lushan is perhaps the first Hapa who ever became a major player on the world stage. That he was able to rise through the ranks and eventually carry the title of Emperor, even if short-lived, is remarkable, and speaks much to his genius and strength. Hapas even today can be inspired by him, because he was living proof that even in a world where mixed Eurasians are rare, it is not impossible for us to 'go against the current', so to speak, and attain high distinction. One might be able to make the argument An was a bad man, but it is impossible to say that he did not leave his mark on history, for better or for worse. It is, in my view, a bit of a shame more people, especially mixed-race Eurasians, do not know An's story. This, conveniently, exposes two truths: one, we owe it to ourselves to expand our view of history beyond the past handful of centuries; two, applying this wisdom, we ought to view with suspicion anyone from our own time period who claims, as did the Tang, that we live in the best time period in history. That history repeats itself is not a choice; it is a law.

Is it Fair to Call the People's Republic of China "Confucian"?

 

The People's Republic of China is one of the strongest states at present.

With the ascension of the state known as the People's Republic of China in recent years to a position of global prominence, there have been those whose pathways towards criticizing it, or in some cases, praising it, and its policies are based upon an reading of its ideology as "Confucian". Notably, thinkers such as Jason Reza Jorjani have been critical of China's ideology because of its "Confucian paternalism and collectivism" in opposition to the radical Western individualism of which he is an advocate. However, attempting to analyze the state ideology of the mainland from this point of view may not be valid for a number of reasons, many of which stem from a basic lack of understanding of the history of China and, beyond that, a lack of an understanding of what exactly Confucianism is. Criticizing the People's Republic is valid in any case, but, I believe, censure must be grounded in a strong and intellectual understanding of underlying ideology and strands of thought, or else it is as effective as arrows with no bow.

In a previous article, I discussed Confucianism and gave a rough sketch of it and its history. Here I will do so again, with a little more detail. Confucianism is sometimes analyzed as an ideology and sometimes as a religion. Because the 6th century BC lecturer and statesman Kong Qiu (孔丘) or Zhongni (仲尼), better known as Master Kong (孔夫子, kongfuzi, whence English Confucius), is worshiped as an ancestral figure in China and other Confucian countries, many have opted to analyze it as a religion. However, it is easiest to understand it as simply a collection of philosophical principles, particularly with regard to social ethics. The religious character it took on in later time periods aside, Confucius actually had little to say with regard to the worship of divinities and spirits; the gist of his teachings can best be summarized as a philosophical reaction to the decline in the prestige, culture and political power of the then-centuries-old Zhou (周) dynasty. This--the political, social and cultural environment in which Confucius lived--is the first thing one must keep in mind when discussing Confucianism.

Confucius' surname was Kong (孔), given name Qiu (丘) and courtesy name Zhongni (仲尼). He is best known as Master Kong (孔夫子). In this depiction, he is given the epithet 'Most Holy' (至聖).

If we were to try our hand at categorizing Confucius using modern terms, we would say he was a Traditionalist. Like the Traditionalist Catholics of today, Confucius advocated for a return to the mores, values and ways of life which were at their peak centuries before he was even born. And that brings us to our next point, "Confucianism" itself and the values it advocates are not really things that were originated by Confucius, but rather, having declined by the time of his life, were transmitted and revived by him. This quote from the Analects should sufficiently illustrate:

子曰：「述而不作，信而好古，竊比於我老彭。」(論語 7.1)

Confucius said: "I transmit (doctrines) but do not create (doctrines), and I trust and love the ancients. I compare myself to old Peng." (Analects 7.1)

Much like our time period today, the time period Confucius lived in was one of great social and moral degeneration. The official Royal authority wielded by the Kings of Zhou, as allotted to them by the Mandate of Heaven, existed in name alone. The princelings of subordinate feudal states began putting on airs and vying among each other for the position of Hegemon (霸, ba), and eventually many upgraded their titles from 'duke' to 'king', claiming equality with the Zhou kings. According to the rites of Zhou, there was a hierarchical system of privileges. For example, only the King of Zhou was permitted to have 9 high ministers; the governments of subordinate states were only allowed 3. However, by the time of Confucius, many privileges which in theory belonged only to the Zhou kings had begun to be usurped by the lords of lesser houses. One complaint of Confucius in particular, regarding Mr. Ji (a powerful lord in the state of Lu), is that he employed 8 rows of dancers at official functions, which was the privilege only of the kings of Zhou. "If this can be tolerated, what cannot be tolerated?" (Analects 2.1) is what Confucius had to say about this. His belief that such overstepping of the bounds of propriety is what leads to the chaos and degeneration of the world is what lead him to advocate for a return to the standards of propriety and respect for hierarchy which had been set down at the beginning of the Zhou dynasty by its founders.

"But why should men be bound by such trivial rules, anyway?" This is the line of thought that likely was repeated by many of Confucius' contemporaries, certainly among the haughty nobility of the feudal Zhou states. Modern liberals would also likely resonate with such a sentiment. "Why can't Mr. Ji have as many rows of dancers as he likes? Why should any man be inferior to another?" I can hear them saying. Well, Confucius understood the importance of what we are calling 'propriety' (禮, Li), which in those days encompassed what we would consider 'rituals', 'rites', 'ceremonies', as well as 'manners' and 'proper conduct'. Propriety included anything from the amount of land each noble rank was allowed to control to the way a man sat down on his mat. He understood that all of this was both an expression and and influence on the thoughts (and thus the actions) not only of the individual, but of society at large. If today rulers are calling themselves 'kings', and sporting 8 rows of dancers, tomorrow they will likely have no problem convincing themselves they are justified in marching troops on the Royal capital. Similarly, if subjects saw their rulers revolting against their superiors, they themselves would begin to think it just fine if they revolted against their own superiors, and so on until the connections of loyalty and integrity (i.e. fides) that kept society afloat collapsed, and the society along with it. Confucius understood that the great majority of people have a 'monkey see monkey do' attitude (which certainly still rings true today), and this is the foundation of his social, moral and political philosophy.

 The "Zhou Dynasty" as it appeared at the outset of the Warring States Period. One can see the official territory of the Zhou Kings wedged between Han and Zheng.

If anything, it seems Confucius has been proven correct by the course of History. Not long after his death, the Zhou dynasty more or less fell apart completely, as a number of powerful states began to outwardly assert their independence from the Royal court of Zhou. In this time period, known as the Warring States Period, the old Imperial system of the Zhou dynasty had completely collapsed in all but name, and major states such as Qin, Chu, Wei, Qi and Han were engaged in continuous warfare, intrigue and competition. This period of chaos would continue for a few centuries until the Zhou dynasty was officially disbanded in 256 BC, and not long after that the state of Qin, recently reformed under a new philosophy known as Legalism, united all of the states under a new Imperium: the Qin (秦) dynasty. The establishment of the new Qin dynasty was a huge blow to Confucianism. Under the Legalist system, any competing ideologies or philosophies were banned and anyone endorsing them risked the death penalty. This lead to the infamous Burning of the Books and Burying of the Scholars, where Confucianists and adherents of other schools of thought were systematically executed by the Qin government, and had their verboten books burned. Many books from the pre-Qin era were lost in this manner--those that survived are the result of scholars going to extreme measures to hide them, even concealing them in walls. The Qin dynasty, however, was short lived. With the establishment of the Han dynasty in 202 BC, Confucianism made a major comeback, becoming the official state ideology, which it more or less remained until the destruction of Imperial China in 1912.

Continuing our discussion of Confucianism, while keeping this important historical background in mind, we come to a few of the main tenants of Confucianism as a social and moral philosophy

The first of these, and perhaps the cornerstone of Confucianism, is the reverence of the Ancient. The axiom that "old = good" is clearly a regional expression of the concept of cyclical time, which is one of two main paradigms of time, the other being linear time. While most people today subscribe to the notion of linear time, or the view of time as an 'arrow', this actually has its origins in Semitic cultures, which believed that God created the world at a fixed point in the past, and will destroy the world at a fixed point in the future, and that nothing exists beyond these two extremes. Originally throughout many Eurasian societies, people held the notion of cyclical time, or that time flowed in an endless loop of repeating patterns. This shows up in more familiar forms such as the Four Ages of the Indo-Europeans. According to this doctrine, humanity starts out in a state of perfection, either being gods themselves, or living among gods in a Golden Age. As time goes on, however, the state of humanity only declines; living standards, morality, level of culture, etc. all dissipate with time until the Iron Age, where humans live in a desperate, despondent condition. At the end of the Iron Age, a superhuman hero cleanses the world of filth, and creates a new order, ushering in another Golden Age, and the cycle starts all over again. Since ancient times, Chinese practiced an animistic, nature-oriented religion not unlike most other Eurasian peoples, which they likely picked up from contact with Altaic people. Not surprisingly, the concept of cyclical time was definitely known and accepted among them. Confucius certainly endorses this view:

子在川上，曰：「逝者如斯夫！不舍晝夜。」(論語 9.17)

Confucius, standing upon a river, said, "What flows (or 'passes', in the sense of 'passing on') is just like this! Day and night, it never stops." (Analects 9.17)

In other words, the numerous intricacies of human life flowed from one to the next in no different way than water flowed. Rather than starting one day in the past and ending some day in the future, they will continue to occur for all eternity.

A map showing the approximate locations of the prehistoric tribes.

The ancient Chinese held the notion of a prehistoric Golden Age as well. According to mythology, the first Chinese state was founded by Huang Di (黄帝), or the Yellow Emperor. He united the two tribes of Youxiong (有熊, his own) and Shennong (神農, that of Yan Di (炎帝), or the Flame Emperor), and defeated a creature or demon known as Chi You (蚩尤), who represented the old order. This resulted in the creation of a new political and social order and is generally considered the beginning of Chinese history. A number of virtuous rulers followed Huangdi, including the famous trio of Yao (堯), Shun (舜), and Yu the Great (大禹), however, afterwards the decline begins to take place, and the people find themselves needing to periodically rise up to depose tyrants, such as Kings Jie (桀) and Zhou (紂, not the same 'zhou' as above). As one can see, the ancient mythohistory seems to corroborate the view that the ancients held a notion of cyclical time and the general motif (once again, found in many societies throughout Eurasia) of the prehistoric Golden Age. That being the case, it is no surprise that Confucius is always singing the praises of the ancient sage rulers, especially Yao and Shun, and taking them to be paragons of virtue which all ought to emulate. "As a sovereign, how great was Yao! How majestic! Heaven alone is great, but only Yao corresponded to it (i.e. ruled according to Heaven's laws). How vast was his virtue!" (Analects 8.19) For these reasons, high antiquity was held in the most reverent regard, and seen as superior to and more real than the present age. A parallel might be drawn in Daoist philosophy (itself derivative of the same animistic, nature-oriented spirituality as Confucianism), which held that the supreme state of humanity was in the purity, the 'blank slate', of the newborn baby.

Yao and Shun. Depicted here is Yao famously abdicating his throne to Shun.

Taking this as a basis, it is easy to understand why things such as ancestor worship and paternalism are among the fundamentals of Confucianism, especially compared to the pragmatic Legalism or egalitarian-universalist Mohism. How does this compare to the Western, Aryan philosophies and their so-called 'individualism'? We are able to see a foundation of similar, almost identical, composition, but from which can be detected two offshoots of later independent development. Like the Indo-Europeans, the ancient Chinese worshiped a paternalistic sky god, known as Tian (天). Tian is without doubt a local reflex of the same prehistoric god whence the IE supreme god Dyeus-Phter (in turn Zeus, Jupiter, Dyaus Pitar, etc.), and the Turko-Mongolic god Tengri. Further, as much disdain as Jorjani has for ancestor worship, and its inherently 'collectivist' nature, it is hardly of Confucian, or even Chinese, origination. In fact, ancestor worship was widely practiced among all the major branches of Indo-Europeans. For example, see the Di Manes of the Romans, as well as the Genii (from gens, lit. 'a tribe or lineage', implying worship of clan or racial progenitors). Among native faith groups in Europe even today it is still practiced. Thus the practice of ancestor worship can only be implied to be congenital, along with the worship of a patriarchal sky God, in a supremely ancient race, which spread it to the proto-Indo-Europeans and Altaics either through contact, or else by directly siring those races, and then from the Altaic race it spread to the Sinitic.

The notion that Confucianism, or Chinese culture in general, is inherently 'collectivist' is grossly mistaken. In my opinion, it is equally as ludicrous as the notion that Aryan culture is inherently 'individualist'. The entire 'individualist' vs. 'collectivist' dichotomy is a bit of a trap. It begins to severely break down when we analyze societies of the Traditional type, because it largely evolved out of the Renaissance and Enlightenment thought in Europe, and thus out of the notion of Humanism, which is antithetical to Traditionalism for a number of reasons. However, I will save that discussion for another article.

That leaves us with only the main question still left unanswered. Does it make sense to characterize the modern People's Republic of China as "Confucian"? On the surface, it definitely makes a lot of sense. It is no secret anymore that in the People's Republic, especially when compared to North America and Western Europe, there is a high degree of social conservatism, of the type that would make even the top "conservative" thinkers in the West blush. It cannot feasibly be imaged that the People's Republic anytime would be ready to take in millions of third-world immigrants as Western governments, nor do they allow what is often called social degeneration, in such forms as hedonism, feminism, homosexuality, and others, to reach the levels at which they stand in the West. At the same time, the government of the People's Republic seems to have embraced what in the West would be labeled as extreme ethnonationalism. Indeed, there is no way a contemporary European ethnonationalist can look upon China's Emperors Yan and Huang Giant Statue, a massive (106m tall) monument dedicated to the divine founders of the Chinese race, without a bit of jealousy.

Emperors Yan and Huang Giant Statue (炎黄二帝巨型塑像), Henan Province, China, completed in 2007. This would be like a giant statue of Odin or Zeus being built in the modern West.

So can this conservatism and apparent ethnonationalist tendencies of the modern Chinese state really be attributed to Confucianism? Well, not really. In fact, despite the good image Confucius has today and the apparent widespread implementation of some of his philosophy, the People's Republic can hardly be described as a Confucian state. Confucianism is a doctrine, a dogma, but the People's Republic is not dogmatic, it is pragmatic. The Han race, which makes up the overwhelming majority of China's population, is both the most populous and least united group of people in the world, both modernly and anciently. There were several episodes throughout its history which, like the Warring States Period, involved multiple factions, each with their own goals, vying among each other for supremacy. To make a long story short, despite thousands of years of history, the entire Han race, to whatever extent it can be said to exist, has never all been on the same side. The People's Republic, which inherited a territory fought over by warlords for half a century, from the very beginning was concerned with creating a unified, modern state.

Today, their approach to unity can best be described as a pragmatic one. Previously, they had embraced dogmatically the Marxist-Leninist thought, and sought unity by brute-forcing it into the national consciousness, overtaking every aspect of life. However, when they found out this did not work (Marxism is antithetical to human nature), they quickly switched to a more pragmatic approach, embracing whatever ideologies and methods would be beneficial, while shunning those which were not. A large part of this involved appeals to the ethnic affinities of the approximately 50 official ethnic groups living in Chinese territory. For the Han people, which make up a greater than 90% majority, embracing Confucius, whom they had previously demonized as a 'feudalist' and 'reactionary' during the Cultural Revolution, desecrating his tomb and temples across the country, seemed like a natural course of action. It is no wonder why so many today, even mainlanders themselves, consider them Confucianist. But we should not be fooled. Modern China's embracing of Confucius cannot be seen as much more genuine than their apparent endorsement of Genghis Khan. In the 1950s they built a mausoleum to the Mongolian ancestor, where official sacrifices were held for him, all in a ploy to guarantee the Mongols living in Inner Mongolia remained loyal to them. It is just a shameless tactic which abuses humans' natural feelings of love and affinity towards their kinfolk, and the affinity and love people of Eurasian races naturally feel towards their ancestors and their fatherland, in order to garner loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party. As soon as they have found a more efficient way to guarantee loyalty and social "harmony", we can expect the name of Confucius to again be defamed, and his temples to again be set on fire.

 The destruction of Confucian Temples during the Cultural Revolution, committed by the Red Guards under the auspices of the Chinese Communist Party and Maoist insanity.

As for the objectively socially conservative practices going on in the People's Republic with official sanction from the government, while they are indeed in line with Confucianism, it can hardly be said that they are implemented because of Confucian influence. Rather, they are implemented simply because they lead to a strong and healthy nation. It is no secret that runaway hedonism, feminism and homosexuality weaken the nation, while notions such as ethnonationalism and paternalism strengthen the nation. What weakens the nation they have abolished, and what strengthens the nation they have embraced, not as a doctrine, but as a strategy. If they truly embraced Confucianism as a doctrine, then why is that so many other Confucian ideas are 'conveniently' left out? Confucianism holds the family as the most important unit of society, yet the People's Republic, with its child-limitation policies, general socialist disdain for private property, and acceptance of abortion as a means for birth control, can hardly be said to be pro-family. This is because they are aware that to strengthen the position of the family would be detrimental to state loyalty, as it would promote family loyalty instead. Only when one realizes that the Chinese establishment views everything through the lens of state power, state strength and state loyalty, can one begin to understand modern China. In this way, modern China is much more similar to the ancient Legalist Qin dynasty, with its strict, authoritarian government, use of censorship to suppress competing ideologies, and emphasis on unity, assimilation and state loyalty above all else.

I hope the reader has learnt a bit about Confucianism, its history and the true content of this philosophy, as well as the modern Chinese People's Republic, and why it cannot in any true sense be considered Confucian. Hopefully I have dispelled a few of the common myths that are often circulated regarding these topics. It is also my hope that I have demystified, in the eyes of those who are not too familiar with China, modern or ancient, an important part of its history and worldview, as well as the origins thereof. In any case, China due it its heavy influence in Asia for thousands of years, is an ancient, and indeed glorious, part of the Eurasian story. Ancient nations from Vietnam to Japan were not mistaken to be influenced by the exquisite high culture of the Tang dynasty, for instance. However, even more so than other nations, China has always been a sort of 'two-faced' nation. Further, the 'idea' of China has never completely overlapped with the people of China (that the last 2 of 3 Chinese Imperial dynasties were ruled by non-Chinese speaks volumes). I leave the reader with a warning: do not confuse the modern state known as "China" with the ancient, prestigious, cultured Confucian Empire and Nation, which, in my humble opinion, took its last breath in 1912.

Fides in Early Eurasian Societies

As mentioned before, one of the major theses which I am setting forth in this blog states that, the farther back we look in time, the more the civilizations which are of Indo-European and East Asian heritage begin to resemble one another, suggesting a common point of origin for those quintessential strands of thought, culture and lifestyle which were at the center of ancient Eurasian civilizations, and which today constitute the greater cultural heritage of the myriad European and Asian peoples, as well as the Eurasian hybrids. Note well, however, that I do not necessarily assert the existence of a single point of origin for the entire European and Asian races per se, but rather that in an epoch of remote prehistory, there was a great migration of people out from the Eurasian Steppe, the true cradle of civilization, one part moving into Europe, the other into Asia, and intermarrying among the various native peoples there. Now that prehistoric race was certainly war-like, and as such was able to establish dominance over the various peoples it came in contact with, spreading to them their culture, language, and social and religious institutions.

Of course, due to the extreme antiquity of that race, not much can be ascertained about it, other than what can be deduced from analyzing and comparing the cultures, languages and social and religious institutions of their descendants and the descendants of the ancient races they conquered. This brings us back to my original thesis, and highlights its importance.

In this post I will be comparing some of the most prominent features of the ancient social and political orders of Indo-European and East Asian civilizations. From this hopefully some insight might be had into the details of that ancestral race which I mentioned briefly above, and hopefully the reader might come to be aware of, and come to appreciate, these deeply-rooted affinities that exist between the European and Asian civilizations, which, on their surface, seem to be polar opposites.

First let's talk about fides. In discussing the ancient political and social orders of various Indo-European and East Asian nations, fides plays a very important role. But what actually is fides, and why do we care about it? fides in Latin means has the meaning of faith (a word which is directly descended from fides), credit, honesty, trust, loyalty, fidelity, promise, etc. It is not only useful, but also insightful, that we borrow this word straight out of the ancient Latin, because in that time, this vast array of concepts for which we have separate words for today was all called by the single word fides. From that initial array, one might get the false conception that fides is a complicated term, but nothing could be more false. Rather it is very simple: what fides is essentially is an establishment, or a contract, of mutual responsibility.

Now this concept of mutual responsibility indeed sounds very basic, but I think it can be argued that it is the very cornerstone of a true civilization, because it ensures that everybody involved benefits to the extent that they contribute. One of the most basic and immediately understandable senses of fides is the idea that what a man says he will do, he will indeed do. Imagine if we could not rely on people to do what they say they will do. If that were the case, all of the basic machinery of society would cease to function. We could not leave money in a bank and expect it to be there when we return. We could not expect our allies to join us in war. We could not even expect people to show up for work or for a meeting at the proper time. This is called the fides of words. But while this concept today is ubiquitous (or, used to be ubiquitous) in anything that even remotely resembles a functional and fair society, it is most certainly not something that is innate in all humans. Rather it most likely appeared among a few certain energetic races and later spread during periods in which such races expanded and dominated the weaker races. Analyzing into history, we find that a highly developed concept of fides, including the fides of words, existed very anciently in both Indo-European and East Asian societies.

Let us first take a look at each individually.

The migration of the Proto-Indo-Europeans

In ancient Indo-European societies, going all the way back the the premigratory period, fides and the idea of mutual responsibility defined nearly every social apparatus. There was a systematic view that every social relation between two parties of was an instance of a host-guest relationship, from the relationships between friend and friend, to father and son, ruler and subject, and so on. In such a relationship, each party involved owes something of equal value to the other party, hence the idea of reciprocity and fairness. What is important to note here, however, is the notion of equality. I do not mean that each party was of equal rank or status, but rather that each party owed the other something of equal value. What was given by one party, was expected to be returned by the other in to an equal degree. How do we know this? Well, in the ancient Proto-Indo-European language, there was, in fact, no distinct word for host and guest, rather the word *gʰóstis (whence the English 'guest') referred to both roles (gʰóstis itself is derived from *gʰes-, literally, 'to eat', suggesting that the original meaning may have been 'tablemate' or something along those lines). What this means is that between any two given social roles, there was an implicit contract, stating that each party involved had equal obligations to the other. Violation of the contract on either side would have nullified it, and the side which had been slighted was no longer obligated to adhere to it.

History abounds with examples of fides and the guest-host reciprocity in the various daughter nations of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Among the Greeks it was considered a great impropriety to refuse shelter to a traveler. However, any 'traveler' who took advantage of his host and freeloaded was held in the same contempt. There is no doubt that many of the republican experiments conducted by Greeks and Romans were evolutions of this concept within the sphere of politics, the idea being that the rulers and the ruled have equal obligations to one another, the ruler, to answer to the people and to guide them, and the ruled, to render service, taxes and loyalty to the ruler. Hence, the tyrant was a ruler who did not uphold his end of the agreement, and was liable to be overthrown by the people (a degenerated form of this idea arose during the Enlightenment, known as the 'social contract'). Another example, which I find particularly interesting, is the especial contempt the more conservative Romans had for the practice of retail trade. In that country there were days set aside when markets would be held, called the nonae, which were greatly criticized by many Roman authors. Even the attributive nundinus and abstract noun nundinatio continued to carry the meaning of 'trafficking, corruption,' etc. into the medieval period. The Romans' contempt for retail marketing can only be explained by its obvious violation of the guest-host reciprocal relationship: in dishonest and lucrative trading, it is the seller who gains more than the buyer, and deception is employed almost by necessity.

A major functional component in upholding fides was the oath. Basically, the oath was a verbal expression of one's willingness to be bound by a contract of mutual obligation. The act of swearing an oath was itself a ritual. Often various gods were invoked to serve as witnesses, and the swearing of the oath was accompanied by an animal sacrifice. Famous oaths by kings, generals and heroes have directed the very course of history and mythology, such as the oath sworn by the Greek kings to aid whoever married Helen in any contention, which eventually lead to the ten-year Trojan War. Following the rise of Christianity, the oath does not go away, nor does its ritualistic character, with many oaths even to this day ending with the formula, 'so help me God.' One of the few modern vestiges of the ancient traditions of oaths is the gesture where one holds the right hand erect, with the palm facing forward (anciently the right hand was associated with virtue). This gesture is extremely ancient, and indeed extremely symbolic. It comes from the practice of kings swearing oaths of alliance, or oaths of non-aggression. When both parties stood at a distance and showed one another their empty, open palm, they could rest assure that it was safe to approach without fear of being killed by a hidden weapon. This gesture is related to the the today ubiquitous hand-waving greeting gesture, as well as the Roman salute.

Oath of the Horatii, Jacques-Louis David

As you can see, fides is a concept rooted very deeply in Indo-European culture and its legacy is still strongly felt even in today's era of widespread decay. Next let's take a look at the concept of fides as it existed in the premodern civilizations of East Asia. Here it is indeed the case that there existed a concept of fides which greatly resembled that of the Indo-European civilizations.

The ancient Chinese language had its own word analogous to the ancient Latin fides, namely 信 (xin4). A simple graphic analysis of this character reveals that it depicts the fides of words discussed above. On the left there is the pictograph denoting 'man, person' (亻), and on the right, the pictograph denoting 'word' (言). Clearly what is depicted is a man standing beside his words. In ancient Chinese, as in the modern language, the word itself basically means trust, confidence, faith, truth etc., mirroring the ancient Latin fides. But, as with most Chinese words, it also contains a verbal dimension, meaning to trust, to believe in, to put one's confidence in, to consider truthful, etc. In the Confucian East, xin had no less important a role than fides in the West. It is one of the five Confucian virtues, also known as the Five Constants (五常), the other four being 仁 (ren2, humanity), 义 (yi4, righteousness), 礼 (li3, propriety) and 智 (zhi4, wisdom).

A word of similar meaning we find used very often alongside xin is 忠 (zhong1), which basically means 'loyalty'. Often the two words are combined to render 忠信 'loyalty and trustworthiness', which appears six times in the Confucian Analects. The character 忠 contains the radical 心 ('heart'), which is most commonly used to denote a feeling or mental state. Thus zhong can be understood best as a kind of intention which is oriented towards xin and carrying out xin. In the Japanese language, 忠 is an alternative spelling for 真心 (magokoro, まごころ), literally meaning 'true heart'. Zhong is very often used to describe the ideal conduct of a vassal towards his lord. But according to Confucius himself, much like in Indo-European culture, that relationship was a reciprocal one.

定公問：「君使臣，臣事君，如之何？」孔子對曰：「君使臣以禮，臣事君以忠。」论语3.19

Duke Ding asked, "How should a lord employ vassals, and how should vassals serve their lord?" Confucius responded, "Lords should employ vassals according to propriety (礼, li3), vassals should serve their lord according to loyalty (忠, zhong1)." -- Analects, 3.19

We find another potential parallel, this time to the Indo-European concept of deposing a political leader who has violated the lord-subject fides and abandoned virtue, elsewhere in the Confucian school. Mencius (孟子), the 亞聖 (ya4sheng4), or 'second only to the Sage (Confucius)', said that a lord who gives up the 'righteousness and benevolence' he owes his subjects has forfeited his right to even be considered a lord, and as such, if his vassals overthrow and kill him, it cannot be considered the crime of 'regicide' (弑君) (Mencius, Liang Hui Wang II, 15). Indeed Chinese history is full of instances where rulers and dynasties were overthrown according to this logic; it would be exhausting to enumerate them all. Does this qualify as a direct and significant analog to the overthrow of tyrants and despots in classical Greece and Rome, or even the American Revolution which took place millennia later (as the Founding Fathers, who were influence by early Chinese texts, may have believed)? I will let the reader decide for himself, but no one can deny that there is a strong resemblance, which in itself is nothing less than a vast pasture of common ground and interracial affinity.

A quick note before we move on. The reader might be wondering, in determining the social and cultural features of ancient races, why does Confucianism matter so much? This is explained by the historical background in which Confucianism emerged and the issues it sought to tackle. Confucius lived during the Spring and Autumn period. At this point, the centuries-old Zhou dynasty was waning in power and prestige, and smaller 'vassal' states were building huge armies and contending among themselves for preeminence. The Zhou emperor was but a figurehead. Confucius advocated for a return to the traditional culture and social structure that had existed in the early Zhou dynasty, with a particular reverence for the ancient customs which had been passed on unto the Zhou from antiquity. Thus it can only be understood that the facets of culture, religion and society that Confucius advocates belong to a strain which is immensely ancient, and which had been reduced to an embarrassingly degenerate state by his lifetime. Confucius himself explains this in Analects 2.23: 

子張問：「十世可知也？」子曰：「殷因於夏禮，所損益，可知也；周因於殷禮，所損益，可知也；其或繼周者，雖百世可知也。」

Zi Zhang asked, "Can we know how things will be ten generations from now?" Confucius said, "The Yin (Shang) dynasty took the rites of the Xia dynasty as a basis, what they added and removed, we can know. The Zhou dynasty took the rites of the Yin dynasty as a basis, what they added and removed, we can know. Whatever follows the Zhou dynasty, even if it is a hundred generations from now, we can know it."

One last Chinese word worth mentioning briefly, in which we can find parallels to the Indo-European practice of oath-swearing, is 盟 (meng2). The basic meaning of meng is 'oath' or 'pledge'. It is found in words such as 联盟 (lian4meng2, 'alliance') and 盟国 (meng2guo2, 'ally'), to denote an 'alliance', which clearly has arisen from the practice of states or rulers to swear an oath to solidify the alliance. Graphically analyzing the character reveals its ritualistic nature as well. While the top element (明, ming2) is merely phonetic, the bottom element (皿, min3) is a depiction of a sacrificial vessel or other kind of cup, which would have likely been used in ancient times during rituals in which an oath of allegiance was sworn. In analyzing history and folklore, we are left with no doubt that the swearing of oaths had a ritual nature. The most famous example is the Peach Garden Oath (桃園三結義), depicted in the mythohistorical novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms, between Liu Bei, Guan Yu and Zhang Fei, where a white horse and a black ox were sacrificed and the three men sworn as blood brothers.

 

盟 (meng2) in the seal script, note the vessel at the bottom

the Peach Garden Oath (桃園三結義)

At this point, we have gone over in considerable detail a few of the most prominent aspects of fides as they were manifested in the various ancient cultures of Europe and Asia. Of course, our conversation is not yet done; fides, along with other social and political concepts, permeates several other ancient Eurasian societies besides the selection we have looked at in this post, such as Mongolia and Japan, and in the West, Persia. In future posts, I will continue to enumerate and discuss them, and explore the Eurasian story to an even greater degree, but so as not to make this post too long, I have to end it here. To close, in analyzing the vestiges of prehistory which were transmitted to the ancients, we are left with clues into that primordial thread of potentially common origin which constitutes the cornerstone of all the great civilizations of Europe and East Asia.