The latest essay by our English correspondent Seneca III is a study of the works of the French writer Guillaume Faye.
To Chaos and Beyond — Faye, on Fate and Futurism
by Seneca III
“Are these the last days of Europe?”
— Walter Laqueur, from The Last Days of Europe: Epitaph for an Old Continent, New York St. Martin’s Griffin, 2009.
This series of three essays explores the ongoing destruction of the West, of the origins of this debacle and of its enablers, both the deliberately misinformed and the malignant peddlers of Euro-ethnic cleansing. It also looks into a deeply perplexing future, mainly through the eyes and thought processes of one particular philosopher and political scientist, the French scholar Guillaume Faye.
With a doctorate in Political Science from the Institute of Political Science in Paris, Professor Faye was one of the principal theoreticians of the French ‘Nouvelle Droit’ in the 1970s and ’80s, prior to his developing an empathy with the Identitarian movement. He has also been a journalist at Figaro-Magazine, Paris-Match, Charlie Hebdo and Valeurs Actuelles.
Faye became known as the enfant terrible of the Nouvelle Droit. In 2000 he was sentenced to a heavy fine by a French court for his book ‘The Colonisation of Europe: True Discourse Against Immigration and Islam (L’Aencre). It was this action that first drew my attention. I have long held that anyone who brings down the wrath of the proponents of a proto-tyranny upon his or her shoulders is or has been presenting an idea or suggesting a course of action that is perceived as an existential threat to such totalitarian, monotheistic entities and their enforcement apparatchiks, and has hit the nail right on the head.
In essence such reactions are the typically Pavlovian responses to any ethnic, political or intellectually critical examination of an extant regime, and are an early sign of its desperation, a precursor to the full draconian reaction that will follow as the inevitable demise of its gratuitous construct begins. (A recent UK example of this is the British Establishment’s ridiculing, demonization and then what was, effectively, the elimination of the English Defence League — albeit a flawed and poorly-led organisation, but nonetheless one with a justifiable ethno-cultural raison d’être.)
Of his many books and publications three of Faye’s most seminal contributions to the dialectic are available in English language editions: ‘Why We Fight’ [A], ‘Convergence of Catastrophes’ [B] and ‘Archeofuturism’ [C]. The seven abstracts below from ‘Why We Fight’ are from his METAPOLITICAL DICTIONARY (187 entries in all) which constitutes its main thrust, although I would describe it as more of an encyclopaedia than a dictionary.
In the two short chapters following the FOREWORD and PREFACE, PRELIMINARY ELEMENTS and STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES, Faye deals with what he describes as ‘The Logic of Decline’, ‘Economic Principles’, ‘Islam Against Europe’, ‘The Dangers of European Disarmament’, ‘The Menace From the South’ and ‘Towards a Eurosiberian Strategic Doctrine’. A few short quotations from the Forward, Preface, Elements and Strategic Principles are interspersed throughout this essay with the intention of giving the reader a general flavour of those arguments as contained in the more substantial Abstracts.
Also from the Metapolitical Dictionary I have abstracted in Part I the definition of Archeofuturism, but I have left it without comment or elaboration as it is a complex proposition that begs a detailed analysis. Whilst Part II of the series will look at Convergence of Catastrophes, Part III will return to an examination of Archeofuturism — European Visions of the Post-catastrophic Age.
|A .||Why We Fight: Manifesto of the European Resistance by Guillaume Faye. Arktos Media Ltd (2011), ISBN-10: 1907166181 (Paperback) [N.B. This English language edition is a translation from the German. It first appeared, in French in 2001 and then the German edition in 2006, and hence it does in places show its age.]|
|B.||Convergence of Catastrophes by Guillaume Faye. Arktos Media Ltd (2012), ISBN-10:1907166467 (Paperback).|
|C.||Archeofuturism: European Visions of the Post-Catastrophic Age by Guillaume Faye (Author), Michael O’Meara (Foreword). Arktos Media Ltd (2010), ISBN-10: 1907166092. (Paperback)
Part I — Why We Fight: Manifesto of the European Resistance
In view of the recent destruction — or predominantly self-destruction — of Greece as an independent sovereign State, and in order to understand the inevitable destiny of fundamentally flawed socio-political engineering experiments implemented by hubristic power seekers, one has only to observe this event and the further slow, painful disintegration of the European Union.
Furthermore, on an even more disastrous scale, from Malmö to Chattanooga, from Rotherham to Madrid, from Boston to London to Paris to New York and to all points of the Western compass, a bloody tide of barbarism surges, seemingly free to do as it wills, and it is well on course to impose such destruction likewise throughout the whole of the Euro/Anglosphere.
In order to appreciate how this has come about we have to ask why those not of Islam but who enable its predatory advance either wilfully ignore or deny the old axiom that “a house built on sand will eventually collapse”, and its logical extension “a house built on quicksand will quickly disappear”. Should they not consider the reality that they will neither survive nor leave anything of substance whosoever triumphs in the conflict they have brought upon us, for when such a house collapses or disappears, into the vacuum so created there comes some form of chaos, its magnitude being directly proportional to the size and duration of their calamitous building project?
Many philosophers and political scientists, from the early Greeks on through the Enlightenment and beyond to the present day have attempted to dissect the causes of catastrophe and the subsequent chaos into which it leads. Mathematical treatments of Chaos Theory are well established, and this is not surprising in light of the fact that philosophy is at root as much a mathematical discipline as it is metaphysical, for it utilises symbolic logic in the form of both quantitative and qualitative comparative analysis of cause and effect in order to reach its conclusions. What methodology Faye employs in his work is not explained in the books so we can only speculate. However, George Boole, who first introduced the concept of Boolean Algebra (The mathematical Analysis of Logic, 1847 and An Investigation of the Laws of Thought, 1854) predicated his theses upon the idea that variables could be represented as the values ‘true’ and ‘false’ by the use of the operators ‘AND’, ‘OR’, ‘NOT’, thus combining simple propositions into compound propositions, and was himself first and foremost a philosopher.
Abstracts and Quotations
(All bolds in block quotes are Faye’s or his editors’. Quotations in square brackets are from other sources. Footnotes and comments in italics are mine.)
A historical situation in which a people or civilisation loses its ethnic basis due to the mass immigration of aliens.
Ethnic chaos was a factor in the decomposition of the Roman Republic and Empire, Pharaonic-Egyptian civilisation and many ancient Greek cities. Europe is presently in the grip of a colonising settlement by overseas peoples. A civilisation disappears once it loses its original ethnic basis. It becomes a patchwork quilt in which any idea of a city, community and destiny is impossible.
Ethnic chaos signals the pure and simple disappearance of a people and a civilisation — and of true democracy — as all of the classical Greek philosophers warned.
An ethnically heterogeneous population — a kaleidoscope of communities — becomes an anonymous society, without soul, without solidarity, prone to incessant conflicts for domination, to an endemic racism (‘every multi-racial society is a multi-racist society’) — ungovernable because there’s no shared vision of the world. Ethnic chaos is an open door to tyranny.
In the name of multi-racialism, capitalism and democracy have made ethnic chaos part of their programme. Men are stripped of their attachments and remade as consumers, each interchangeable with the other, each without an identity. But this is stupid. Man never actually loses his memory or ancestral identity. A society of ethnic chaos leads in the long run not to prosperity, harmonious individualism or republican rule, but to political and social disorder. We’re now catching the first glimpses of this chaos. From it there will perhaps come the post-chaos — that is regeneration — a return to homogeneity.
… “The history of the world is a history of the struggle between peoples and civilisations for survival and domination. It’s a battleground of wills to power… the base of everything is biocultural identity.”
… “Let us remember that Socrates was a Hoplite and Xenophon a military magistrate.”
…[‘Apart from material gain I have two purposes. First, by expanding our territory to make Mycenae Achaea’s paramount power. Second, to close the coast to seaborne Dorians infiltrating across the Gulf. The Wall already bars their passage across the Isthmus.’
‘They are crossing in numbers, sire?’ Bunus inquired.
The movement,’ said Atreus grimly, ‘has attained the proportions of a mass immigration. They land and take to the mountains where they reinforce the Goatmen. If we don’t stop it we’ll become embroiled in a ceaseless war of attrition. And not Mycenae alone, every civilised city will suffer.’
Heroes shook doubtful heads. Some smiled behind their hands. Goatmen raids and counter-raids had become a way of life, a repetitive military exercise to keep warriors on their toes, a salutary irritant like blistering a horse. None conceived them a major menace. Atreus’ far-seeing vision proved everybody wrong.
— From the novel ‘Warrior in Bronze’ by George Shipway, Peter Davis Ltd., 1977.]
|1.||The destruction of personal identity is the singular, most important step, the sine qua non, imposed by a self-selected few, the new post-war ruling elite, who use their grip on the levers of power to dominate and direct human affairs in their own ambitious and pecuniary interests. By reducing all down to the level of the lowest common denominator they intend to create a passive population, or one otherwise perpetually occupied in low-level ethnic conflict, and thus create an easily controllable Global Slave State or, by another definition, The New World Order.
Chaos is that state of disorganisation and anarchy affecting a collectivity of any sort once it’s beset by catastrophe. The post chaos is that phase when a new order is constructed on the basis of a revolutionary metamorphic logic. It’s the eternal cycle of life, death and rebirth as expressed in Nietzsche’s theory of the eternal return of the identical  as well as in René Thom’s  theory of catastrophes. The society we know can’t be fixed, the system can’t be saved. This is the illusion of every conservative tendency. The sole solution to the present situation will come from chaos — from civil war, economic depression etc. — that overthrows established mentalities and makes acceptable and indispensable that which was previously unimaginable. Only in situations of chaos are the given variables changed and does it become possible to establish another order — the post-chaos. Only in crisis, then, will a solution be found . To construct a new home, it’s first necessary that the old one collapses. It’s not a pessimist but a realist who sees this.
…“We need, in a word, to be alert to demobilising mysticisms, to a pretentious but hollow intellectualism, to easy refuge in spirituality or philosophy whose attitudes, postures and loopholes are ultimately tangential to the resistance.”
… “Distrust is no less warranted in respect to that artificial and instrumentalised ‘paganism’ that threatens to succumb to either a new age disconnected from any worldly struggle, or worse, in the name of a badly understood polytheism, to Xenophilia, and a catastrophic ‘Love of the Other’”.
… “Granted the ‘system’ still holds all the political cards…we have nothing but our ideas, our convictions and our will — certainly not much, compared to the usurpers of power who daily confuse minds, poison souls and take all imaginable measures to initiate the destruction of all identities…We possess, however, the highest trump — the trump of trumps which those who are attempting to erase all traces of their own blood do not possess and can never possess. We know where we are going because we know where we came from. We possess the memory of the history that is also the memory of the ‘mythos’ of our ‘ethnos’, the consciousness of an unbroken line of ancestors from whom we have inherited the most valuable of all privileges: namely the privilege to be like them.”
|2. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Cambridge University Press (2001), pp. 194. This is one of Nietzsche’s central propositions.|
|3. René Frédéric Thom (1923-2002) was a renowned French mathematician. He was principally a topologist and singularity theorist (and winner of the Fields’ Medal) but later moved on to become the founder of Catastrophe Theory.|
|4. Having been born into and raised in what was then a reasonably functional democracy it has taken me most of a long lifetime to come to accept that such a thing no longer exists, and to finally throw off my innate unease at the use and the objectives of the terms ‘revolution’ and ‘revolutionary’. Now, having recently tried one last time to bring about a recovery of that old status quo via the ballot box, and having failed abysmally, I am convinced that that avenue is closed and is beyond hope of recovery. (Granting a universal franchise — without consideration as to whether or not significant a significant percentile of the recipients of this gift are set to destroy and replace that system — is simply a neglectfully altruistic way of committing mass suicide.)
At the onset this painful transition of mine presented me with a moral dilemma, a dilemma which prevailing circumstances forced me to acknowledge and then resolve by finally accepting that only one alternative course of action remains open; in all a slow process through which I have had to struggle within myself, bedevilled by beguiling bucolic memories of a more harmonious and homogenous past. Yet, eventually, I came to the firm conclusion that the necessary course of action should not simply be in the form of ‘resistance’, because whilst resistance is often said to be futile, it is much more than that — it is wholly counter-productive in the sense that it only delays the inevitable chaos and thus the post-chaos opportunity for re-birth, and that the longer such an inevitability is delayed the more difficult will be the reconstruction.
Etymologically: ‘That which makes similar.’ A people’s identity is that what makes it incomparable and irreplaceable.
Characteristic of humanity is the diversity and singularity of its many peoples and cultures. Every form of homogenisation is synonymous with death, as well as with sclerosis and entropy. Universalism always seeks to marginalise identity in the name of a single, unique anthropological model. But ethnic and cultural identities form a block: maintaining and developing the cultural heritage presupposes a people’s ethnic commonality.
Humanity will not survive the challenges if it remains a pluriversum, that is, if it remains a fractious aggravation of profoundly different ethnocentric peoples.
Look: identity’s basis is biological  ; without it, the realms of culture and civilisation are unsustainable. Said differently: a people’s identity, memory and projects come from a specific hereditary disposition.
… “In times of indoctrinated lies and well-bred civil cowardice, the courage to tell the truth mutates into a cardinal sin.”
… “We should also be wary of certain spiritual, metaphysical and so called ‘philosophical’ tendencies. Wary of those impostors who call themselves theologians in the confines of their office…though a spiritual renewal is absolutely necessary — for the sake of Europe’s rebirth — and against materialistic narcissism, which is the primal cause of her present tragedy…Spirituality is not spiritualism. It isn’t something to be decreed or instrumentalised like a computer program.”
… “It is a fact: decadence is far more expensive than prosperity. The peak of absurdity is, however, that the riches acquired through the labour(s) of our people(s) serve, so to speak, as credit cards for the multi-racialist mafias. To put it another way: the victims finance the culprits, and voluntarily pay their executioners the highest salary for their march to the scaffold. Europe squanders her goods to cover the costs of her own extinction. Thus economic collapse precedes genetic ruin.”
… “Europe is the sick man of the world. It’s obvious in her demographic decline, in her physiological deviralisation and in the reigning ideology of ethnomasochism, imposed by politically correct censors and the controlled media. We are gnawed at from within and attacked from without. We are set upon by assailants, occupiers and collaborators, who make up the majority of the political, media and intellectual classes, whether of the Right or the Left. The people have yet to see it because their shopping carts are still full. And although everyone may suspect that the war has begun, the majority denies it, because for the moment no one has the courage to fight it. For the moment…”
… [“Two things only the people anxiously desire — bread and circuses (panis et circenses).”
— The Roman satirist Juvenal commenting on the declining heroism of Romans after the Roman Republic ceased to exist and the Roman Empire began.]
|5.||I am of the opinion that when the established and well-proven moral and genetic value of the traditional heterosexual family structure is superseded by institutionalised deviance, when such deviance becomes the norm and the norm becomes deviance, then the biological basis of our identity, culture and civilisation will no longer exist.
Within a given population, those who are culturally and biologically of non-indigenous origin.
Today it would be better to talk of aliens (allogénes) than of immigrants born in Europe of non-European parents, insofar as the majority of them are not ethnically European, but are considered ‘nationals’ solely on the basis of jus soli.  Since Antiquity, as Aristotle, Thucydides and Xenophon noted, it’s been known that every nation that takes in large numbers of aliens is destined to perish, for these aliens progressively replace natives, who are culturally and/or physically destroyed by them. Such a process is underway now in France. 
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the notion of alien has lost all currency in Europe, either legally, linguistically or nationally. The law, though, should designate every resident not of European origin as an alien. A Belgian, Italian or Russian of European origins residing in France is not an alien. The key point is that a people submerged by aliens eventually become a minority, strangers in their own land. Such is the logic of the colonisation we’re now experiencing. In the end, the alien becomes the native. 
… “Faye believes a real flesh and blood enemy — un corps étranger et parisitaire — mortally imperils Europe: the replacement populations gathered under the Prophet’s banner.
… “In colonising European lands and replacing her native peoples, they have in fact, already begun turning Europe into a Dar-al-Islam — which is eventually going to turn her into an anti-Europe.”
… “Their mechanism is simple: they mount a phony opposition to the system, attacking superficial aspects of it, but never challenge its foundation.”
|6.||Fr. ‘birthright citizenship’|
|7.||And everywhere else in the Euro/Anglosphere.|
|8.||History amply demonstrates that once Muslims are given democratic rights and authority within a territory they are in the process of occupying they will use those rights and that authority to gradually abrogate the rights and authority of the original inhabitants. Thus when it’s in an absolute minority Islam will incessantly demand more and more minority rights. When it becomes a significant minority the pace and intensity of its demands will accelerate exponentially. Then, once Islam becomes a majority within any socio-political or geographic environment, at local, national or continental level, or it finds itself close to becoming one, there will be no more minority rights — for anyone. That is when the original inhabitants will cease to exist.
An individual’s or a people’s capacity to act according to their own will — a capacity gained by discipline and founded on the multiplication of competence and freedom.
The ‘free’ man has long been a model for European society, in opposition to the barbarians and slaves of Greek thought. Today the concept of ‘liberty’ has suffered a veritable inversion of meaning, as has the term ‘democracy’. Liberty nowadays signifies what was once called ‘slavery’, since it’s confused with permissiveness that leads to certain types of servitude. In contrast, real liberty is the faculty of augmenting one’s power, of multiplying one’s capacity to affect the real, and, through autonomy, of overcoming determinism. This conception opposes individualistic egalitarian notions of liberty — conceived as forms of passive licence or the absence of constraints. The slavery — that comes from the dominant ready-to-think ideology and prevents the people and its defenders from openly expressing their convictions and demands — is enforced by a thought police, an obligatory xenophilia, the interdiction of direct democracy, and the power of judges.
… “The threats facing Europe…(itemised)…are prudently ignored by these fake resisters (our ruling classes – S III) who lack any geopolitical, strategic, economic, ethnic or cultural vision of resistance…The principle enemy, everywhere known, isn’t even mentioned. (“It has nothing to do with Islam.”? — S III)
… “There’s another danger, the inverse of these [the above]: a nostalgic, pessimistic discourse steeped in sectarianism and impotence, marginality and inept resistance. This is the logic of history’s eternal losers, vanquished in advance, embittered and discouraged, seeing themselves as the last line of defence rather than the first. Every resistance not arising on a foundation of re-conquest is destined to fail.
|9.||The epithet ‘Islamophobia’ is thus a subliminally self-defining reflection of the user’s induced or cynically opportunistic ‘Islamophilia’.
MASS — massification
The transformation of a people into a mass of undifferentiated, uniform individuals.
It comes with modern egalitarianism. ‘The masses’: this concept shared by both Marxism and capitalism is alien to every organic notion of an ethnically-created people. Massification implies cultural uniformity and race mixing (métissage), consumerism and the cult of commodities. The ‘atomised masses’ oppose both the free individual and the people as an organic ensemble organised in communal hierarchies. This enterprise of massification and homogenisation has, however, failed everywhere, except unfortunately amongst native Europeans, who have been emasculated by it. But despite its will to ‘reduce everything to the same’, despite socio-economic standardisation, egalitarian market society has failed to neutralise ethnic nationalism or the resurgence of identities.
… “Sterile disputes and sectarian divisions divide and neutralise those who ought to be in solidarity with one another. This contrasts with the enemy, who, however protean, knows how to close ranks.”
…”Contrary to the suicidal opinions held by the sorcerer’s apprentices of the multi-racial heresies, the analysis made by all experts on immigration, demographics and economics are symptomatic of an ever widening gulf opening up between the clear vision of pragmatic scientists and the dementia of the dysfunctional political class.”
|10||See Note 1 and, to a lesser extent, Note 5above.
The attitude that approaches the future in terms of ancestral values, believing that notions of modernism and traditionalism need to be dialectically transcended.
Archeofuturism opposes both modernity and conservatism seeing them a versos of one another and believing that modernity is backward looking having failed to realise either its ideals or great projects. Techno-science, for example, is incompatible with humanity’s humanitarian and egalitarian values. The Twenty-first century will see the resurgence of struggles that bourgeois and Western cosmopolitan ideology thought it had long buried; identitarian, traditionalist and religious conflicts; geopolitical fissures; ethnic questions posed at the planetary level; battles over scarce resources.
On the rear cover of the book it was suggested, either by the publishers or an editor, that “As it was for the nineteenth-century Left with Marx’s Communist Manifesto, Why We Fight is destined to become the key work for twenty-first century Identitarians.” If so, then these will indeed be the times that try men’s souls. How we respond individually and collectively will determine the course of our future. And that of our descendants.
I am now of the opinion that there is no longer any hope of finding a safe middle passage through the two perfect storms of the coming dénouement, our ruling classes and Islam; it’s a simple case of being caught between Scylla and Charybdis, and so one or the other, or probably both, will have to be neutralised. We, the Europeans, exist and they, the Slaves of Allah, exist, each in a state of total moral, cultural, intellectual and ideological incompatibility with the other. Furthermore, the current elites throughout the West have taken their position and cannot compromise nor turn back now in any way, for they have taken it too far. They know that for them to even take one short step down that road would be to expose their deconstructionist position in its totality and fatally shift the sand beneath their hideous treason, followed by the swift exsanguination of them and all of their ambitions.
We, then, the indigenous peoples of the Western Ecumene, must do this thing ourselves, without them, without mercy, hesitation or magnanimity. And do it now before we are demographically outnumbered and beaten into total subjugation or extermination.
As was the Restoration of Rome effected by what became to be seen by some as Barbarian Popes and Imperial Contenders, so may we be viewed. But no matter — if we prevail we will be the ones who set the future course. History and those who triumph to write it always define the prevailing moral philosophy and, in the final analysis, it is an immutable reality that evolution is simply the end product of survival of the fittest. Those survivors, whoever they are, will be the heirs to the future.
|11.||The Restoration of Rome — Barbarian Popes and Imperial Pretenders, by Peter Heather, Macmillan, 2013.
Afterthought — a personal philosophy:
“The coming century will be a century of iron. It will bring about an archeofuturist return of ancient questions, of eternal disputes, after the short parenthesis of ‘modernity’, which lasted barely three centuries — a moment in history’s course. The coming age announces the titanic and the tragic — as an overcrowded humanity, crammed on a sick planet, engages its decisive struggle for survival.
End of a regime and interregnum.” (Faye, Preliminary Elements)
I can think of no better path for a man or a woman to tread than to join together, one with the other, within the bosom of their own culture and community in order to love, care, support and protect their union, by any means at their disposal no matter how demanding, and to beget and do the same for their children so that their vigorous genetic inheritance is passed on and carries forward into the future. That really is immortality, and it has nothing to do with Islam or virgins, no matter the numerical quantity the latter are presumed to be found. Moreover, whilst Muslims do so conjoin similarly, even though often in multiplicands of our predilection for singularity in this area of human relationships, one factor determines their fundamental weakness rather than their strength.
To our everlasting advantage Islam’s fourteen centuries of a closed, genetically damaging, tribally driven consanguineous reproduction system (other than the unfortunate offspring of its rape Jihad) is, in the final analysis, its own nemesis. Throughout human history, and that of the animal world, such a primitive imperative always translates into a terminal state of negative hybrid vigour, a cul-de-sac, the epitome of evolutionary regression rather than progression. And this, in a nutshell, is Islam, the culture we are now beset and belaboured with, one gifted to us in the West by a morally corrupt, venal cabal of acquisitive predators — our own governing classes and their indoctrinated media and executive arms.
Yet the universe continues on its course. Islam persists in indulging itself in its painful and grotesque death throes, in its recent but far from historically unique barbaric manifestations — frenzied orgasms of rape, atrocity, death and destruction — through which it chooses to express its hopes of a continued existence and ultimate dominance. Islam knows no better, nor ever will.
If we are to survive this tsunami of primitivism we must take hold of this, our small advantage, and cease treating these cretinous by-products of a failed system as if they were of us; they are not. They and their enablers are immune to reason because they exist in a different space-time continuum, a dark place from which two sets of similar doctrinal chains permit no escape. And, no, there are no such things as moderate Muslims, there are only Muslims and possibly an undefined cadre of apostates who dare not declare for fear of their lives.
We must pity the latter, of course, for we cannot retreat from all of our humanity, only that percentile which we must abstain from in order to ensure our own survival. Yet nor can we save them at this point in time: we do not have the resources to spare, for everything we do have must be deployed in the cause of our own survival. Then, and only then, that objective achieved, would we dare risk whatever we have left and invest it in their salvation.
And, finally, I ask all of you of Euro-ethnicity to try to accept this demanding necessity: above all things we must prevail, whatever the gruesome cost of the attempt, because the price of failure will be much higher and will have to be paid not by us, but by our descendants — if any.
Sadly, that is the way of it. Islam permits us no other course of action. It cannot, for if it did then it would no longer be Islam.
— Seneca III, Middle England, 23rd July, 2015.
For links to previous essays by Seneca III, see the Seneca III Archives.