Alex Podolinsky & Demeter Bio-dynamics

Modern Australia has produced two systems of organic agriculture that are now well-known the world over. One of them is profound and shows the way ahead for natural farming; the other is rubbish and is a retrograde throw-back to hunter-gatherer methods. One is populated by serious farmers, men of the soil, who are producing high quality chemical-free food on an industrial scale for a hungry world; the other is populated by greenies, scavengers, ferals, hobby farmers, retired sociologists and a wide assortment of hippies with dubious standards of personal hygiene, all of whom make a lot of noise but produce very little. The profound system is Demeter bio-dynamics.  The hunter-gatherer throwback goes by the name of permaculture. 

The present author has vented his objections to the second of these in an unpopular post to this journal some time ago and makes no secret of them. See the post here. After nearly thirty years of dealing with permaculturists in southern Australia, he is confirmed in his low opinion of permaculture, its results and its clientelle. On the other hand, he has been actively involved in and also loitered on the fringes of the biodynamic movement for the same length of time, and has recently become reacquainted with long-time bio-dynamic farmers, and his positive experience of that system and high regard for it is undiminished. 

This endorsement requires qualification, though. There is a generic form of bio-dynamics, and then there is Demeter bio-dynamics. It is the latter of these two that deserves every praise. Both have their origin in a series of lectures on agriculture by the Austrian mystic and polymath, Rudolf Steiner, in the early 1920s. These lectures spawned a movement that has since taken many forms. What we will call "Demeter bio-dynamics" is one such form, and is a specific adaptation of Dr. Steiner's ideas to the realities of modern farming, in the first instance as they are encountered in the challenging environment of rain-starved poor-soiled broad-acre Australia. We will call it Demeter bio-dynamics because it operates and sells produce under the Demeter trademark, thus:

This trademark distinguishes this particular system of bio-dynamics from others.  Practitioners of the system found it necessary to set up appropriate legal definitions and commercial safeguards in order to avoid unneccesary confusions. To be frank, many expressions of generic bio-dynamics are rubbish too and attract a similar cohort to permaculture with much the same outcomes. Demeter bio-dynamics, on the other hand, is a first-class professional affair with a long track record of solid results backed up with a coherent body of theory and a tradition of independent research. It goes about its mission quietly and without fanfare. It is, without exaggeration, the premiere mode of organic farming in the world today. There are hundreds of successful, profitable farms and millions of acres of Australian farmland under Demeter bio-dynamic cultivation, along with smaller operations all around the world. Demeter is, in fact, the biggest producer of organic food on the planet today. 

Although many fine people have contributed to the development and refinement of Demeter bio-dynamics, it is finally the child of one man, a post-war European immigrant to Australia, Alex Podolinsky. This post concerns him. Although a versatile genius with many accomplishments to his name - he is an architect, amongst other things - he will go down in history as the man who saved bio-dynamics from half-witted hippies and converted it into a viable system of practical farming for real farmers as Dr. Steiner always intended. Born in 1925 - and so over ninety years old as of this posting - he is the grandson of the pioneering Ukranian eco-economist Sergie Podolinsky. He was himself instructed in the theory and methods of bio-dynamics by direct students of Dr. Steiner in Switzerland in the late 1930s and studied it thereafter, deciding at an early age that farming was his calling. 

Nothing in his early experiences of European farming, though, prepared him for the vastly different conditions under which farming is conducted in Australia. After immigrating to the great south land he bought a dairy farm near the mountain hamlet of Powelltown in the state of Victoria and from there set about completely rethinking the bio-dynamic system for Australian conditions. In particular, he realised that Steiner had said nothing relevant to the broad-acre dryland farming that was the norm in Australia; the whole matter would need to be reconsidered. For decades he worked closely with Australian farmers - real farmers - and honed his methods into a successful system. The turning point in this development was perfecting a mechanical means of stirring the "preparations" that Steiner had outlined in his lectures. Steiner had insisted they be stirred by hand. Podolinsky knew that this was utterly unfeasible in Australian conditions. He defied the purists and, assisted by a farmer named Trevor Twigg, designed a stirring machine that matched hand-stirring as nearly as possible. It was a breakthrough. With such machines it was possible to apply the bio-dynamic "preparations" to Australian-sized farms.

He also realised that Australian conditions, far more than the conditions prevailing in Europe, required special emphasis upon the "cow horn preparation" - enumerated 'Preparation 500" - that Steiner had sketched in his lectures. Steiner had indicated that much experimentation would be required before this preparation, like the others, could be perfected. Having learnt the basic technique of making the "preps" in Switzerland, Mr. Podolinsky set about refining the method through careful observation and application. Others, taking Dr. Steiner's sketch as gospel, went about making the preparations in a slap-dash way and supposed them to be either some form of pagan ritual or else a magic potion. Podolinsky understood them to be adjuncts to the inner processes of nature and approached them in that way. The Preparation 500 he produced on his farm in Poweltown was vastly superior to that being made and used by others.  He called it a "humus preperation", the purpose of which was to increase the consolidation of organic matter into stable humus in the living processes of soil. This, he realised, was exactly what was so lacking in Australia's mineralized, depleted soils, a land devoid of large ruminants for aeons. 

The cornerstone of his farming method became judicious applications of the "cow horn preparation" - a sort of potentized dilution of cow manure - stirred in his stirring machines and sprayed upon pastures using carefully adapted farm equipment. Using Preparation 500, without superphosphate and the other chemicals which are standard in Australian agriculture, he was able to revitalize tired and depleted soils, renovate soil structure and increase the humus content to depth. Combined with other bio-dynamic farm management techniques, in many cases the results were nothing short of miraculous. His own farm in Powelltown was the model. While surrounding farms withered and waned during droughts, his remained green and productive using no chemicals or brought-in fertilizers, artificial or natural. The ideal farm in bio-dynamics is a self-contained organism. It can produce a surplus year after year without any imputs from outside. This is at the centre of Steiner's agricultural vision, a vision that Alex Podolinsky made real: the farm as a living, breathing cornucopia drawing on the vital forces of the wider cosmos.

 

Corn horns. These are filled with cow manure, laid in pits (as shown) and buried over winter to make "Preparation 500". 

No great pioneer is without his detractors, however, and Mr. Podolinsky, it must be admitted, found an unusual number of enemies over the years. To achieve the success he did required upsetting many people along the way. As all who have encountered him over the years will testify, by temperament he is a "my-way-or-the-highway" sort of man, unbending, convinced of his own methods, and not inclined to suffer fools or dilettantes. In character he is more like a temperamental and authoritarian European orchestral conductor or violinist with personal traits that often clash with the more casual and egalitarian side of Australians. His involvement in the Steiner education movement ended in schism and lasting resentment. The monopoly he created of bio-dynamic methods was unwelcome in many quarters. He happily alienated the aforementioned hippie contingent and other useless types who have tended to populate the alternative agriculture scene. Even more, his disgressions from Steiner purism and claims to know better won him a wealth of detractors among Anthroposophists, members of Steiner's Anthroposophical Society. A certain Steinerite of the present author's acquaintance once described Mr. Podolinsky to him as "evil". Others have not hesitated to call him an "egoist", a "Nazi", a "fascist", or worse. This is to say nothing of the fact that the mainstream farming establishment were always ready to dismiss him as a crank or a charlatan and to call his methods "muck and magic." 

Wisely, Podolinsky went his own way and refrained from engaging with his critics; instead he let his success speak for itself. As opposed to his army of detractors, there is a legion of dedicated followers and enthusiasts who regard him as the herald of a coming good. This includes many very sober, down-to-earth, salt-of-the-land, no-nonsense, hardworking Australian farmers, a good many of whom Podolinsky saved from bankruptcy and ruin. Desperate, at their wits end, drowning in debt, facing divorce, living on farms destroyed by artificial fertilizers and pesticides, these men would ring him at Powelltown in the middle of the night, purely on a rumor that he had saved other farms with his unorthodox methods. After hearing their plight, Mr. Podolinsky would inform them that, yes, he could save their farm - and possibly their marriage too - but only on the condition that they do things his way and follow his advice to the letter. Bio-dynamics is a delicate and subtle thing. Some of it might seem strange, but it works if it is done correctly, and, if they complied with the rules, he could offer them the prospect of selling their produce under the Demeter label at good prices in Europe, Japan and elsewhere. In an age when more and more family farms are going to the wall, and agriculture in general is unprofitable, Demeter bio-dynamics has an expanding market. And better still, it rehabilitates the land so that farms are a worthy legacy for future generations. If it is easy to find people who have clashed at some time with Alex Podolinsky, it is also easy to find people who regard him as an agricultural messiah, a man who has done more for honest farmers than almost anyone else. 

Some might say that Podolinsky's methods would work just as well without the "magic potions". If so, well and good. He has, however, conducted extensive research and has built up a considerable body of evidence to show that his "500" - if applied correctly and in the right conditions - has a marked impact upon root growth and soil structure. One of the keys to Demeter bio-dynamics is the distinction between water roots and feed roots in plants. Conventional wisdom says that plants take their nutrients through soil water and that nutirients must be water soluble to be effective. This is only partly true. Rather, it is the case that, ideally, nutrients are held in suspension - that is, in a colloidal form - in humus, and plants draw upon this reserve in proportion to sunlight and other factors. The "cow horn preparation' is said to assist in this important process. This is the area of greatest difference between bio-dynamic farming and what ordinarily passes for so-called organic farming. Bio-dynamics has a different understanding of plant nutrients and place of those nutrients in well-structured soil. What appears to be "muck and magic" is underpinned by a solid body of sophisticated, if unconventional, plant science. Like all of Dr. Steiner's enterprises, bio-dynamic agriculture is based in the scientific tradition of Goethe and a practical application of Goethe's approach to the study of nature. 

The present author has heard Mr. Podolinsky lecture several times, the first occasion in the 1980s. There is no question that he is a charismatic man with an extraordinary knowledge of Australian farming and, more than that, a truly deep acquaintance with the processes of the natural world. No doubt he has very fixed opinions on a wide range of topics and is very ready to share them. What it usually amounts to, though, is simply that he is old school, as they say, and finds much that has come to pass in popular culture to be degenerate and abominable. His hatred of pop music is prodigous, for example. Also his contempt for television and the popular media. As a father, it is said, he was strongly authoritarian and forbade his children even the slightest exposure to the music and manners of their peers. There are stories that as teenagers his children would have to sneak off to the toilet to listen to a transistor radio in secret for a taste of rock n roll. People who worked for him or with him described him as a slave-driver and an uncompromising task-master. Many people could not tolerate his manner and demands, threw up their hands and stormed away. He could scandalize audiences with seemingly old fashioned generalisations about race. He could also slap down interjectors or fools with vicious effectiveness. At one lecture this author attended a hairy hippie tried to make much of a coming documentary on the bestselling permaculture favorite 'One-Straw Revolution' by Fukuoka. Podolinsky was unimpressed and, putting the interjector in his place, dismissed Fukuoka as "unimportant" much to the shock and horror of many in the audience. The great Fukuoka unimportant?! The gentleman sitting next to the author muttered something like "What an arrogant bastard!" And so it may have seemed. But the interjection was a distraction and it was imperative, for Podolinsky, that no one confuse the serious farming of bio-dynamics with the "do nothing" Zen agriculture so beloved by the "do nothing" malcontents of the counter-culture. Arrogant? Forthright, at least. 

Even so, he was also charming, engaging, persuasive, intense, and since his physical stature is slight, almost fragile, unthreatening. He walks with a limp and a walking cane. During the war he fell asleep on guard duty one night and badly burnt his foot on a kerosene heater. This infirmity, matched with his zeal, almost reminds one of the maniacal Captain Ahab. Like Ahab, he wants 110% commitment from those prepared to follow him. This is what the present author found both fascinating and unsettling about Alex Podolinsky in his heyday. He was not merely trying to inform or even impress an audience: a man on a mission, he was looking for those who would nail their coin to the mast and join him on his quest.

This quest, moreover, entailed something far beyond just farming. The invitation to join him is an invitation to embrace an entire package. As his grandfather understood, agriculture cannot be separated from economy, and nor can economy be separated from questions about the value of human labour and the whole premise of human endeavour. Alex Podolinsky, that is to say, is more than a farmer: he is a philosopher. It just so happens that farming is at the centre of his philosophical outlook because he regards it, not unreasonably, as the foundation of human civilization. His lectures would often stray from agricultural matters into areas of art and aesthetics. To illustrate a point about the root growth of clover or rye he might deviate into a long disgression about a certain piece of music by Bach. Many of his lectures are informed by architectural and sculptural analogies. It is wonderful to relate that on several occasions he has taken cohorts of rough, rugged Australian farmers - beef farmers! - and insisted on giving them classes in clay modelling so that they might better grasp his teachings about form, shape and volume. It is also wonderful to relate that his teachings on social organisation mean that he is, as he says, "totally anti-bureaucratic" to the point that the Demeter corporation, though it handles millions of dollars of produce, does not even have an accountant. There is no "middle management", no "human resources department", no "committees", nor any of the usual parasites that clutter up modern organisations and make people's lives a misery. Not only is Demeter bio-dynamics an unorthodox mode of farming, the Demeter organisation is a profoundly unorthodox organisation, run according to Mr. Podolinsky's economic and social philosophy. Just as he regards bio-dynamics as the farming of the future, so he has built Demeter to be a model of how corporations should operate in a better and future world. 

All of this is an extremely ambitious undertaking in any one man's life, and yet Mr. Podolinsky's accomplishments are concrete and undeniable. He has written several books, or rather collected and published several volumes of transcripts of lectures and public talks, and he has been subject of a short documentary made by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. See here. But one does not need to believe anything he has written or said. Instead, one need only visit one of the hundreds of farms and gardens that operate according to his methods and with his personal oversight to see the tangible applications of his philosophy. This is where Demeter bio-dynamics is so dramatically distinct to permaculture and this is why the present author is inclined to praise one and decry the other. The latter functions more like a pyramid scheme of expensive courses selling certificates to people who in turn set up expensive courses selling certificates, and yet very rarely does all of this certification translate into real results. Permaculturalists think of themselves as somehow alternative, but in fact the entire permaculture show is very conventional in its epistemology (which is crudely quantitative), its view of human labour (as quantitative "units"), its view of nature (utilitarian and materialistic) and its mode of promotion which is really just an extension of a landscape and planning course from a two-bit university in Tasmania. Alex Podolinsky has never charged anyone a cent for his advice. He lives by farming. The contrast between the trajectory and results of permaculture and those of Demeter bio-dynamics over the past three decades cannot be more stark. The sad fact is, though, that the pioneers of permculture win popular acclaim and are hailed as among Australia's gift to the world while an eccentric genius like Alex Podolinsky will most likely die an unsung hero even though he has made the preparations and planted the seeds for the renovation of a viable agriculture, post-industrial, worldwide and is, by any measure, one of the outstanding figures of our time. 

Yours

Harper McAlpine Black

    

Stars and Trumps

Living, as he has, in the lower southern hemisphere for most of his life the present author has a distinctly southern acquaintance with the night sky. At the southern reaches of the Australian continent the stars appear quite different to how they appear at other latitudes, and especially how they appear in the history-rich temperate zone latitudes of the northern hemisphere. During his recent extended travels, therefore, which have taken him through most of Hindoostan, along the Malacca Straits, across western China, around the Japanese islands and then through the east Indies, he has taken every opportunity to study the night sky from the unfamiliar vantage of northern climes. There were some excellent clear nights when he was in the Himalayas, and again in southern Goa, and in parts of Siam, and in the boat from Shanghai to Osaka, and most recently, in the more equitorial zone, on the long sandy beaches of Bali and Lombok. 

The first thing of interest to a southerner is the pole star: a fixture of the heavens lacking in the southern hemisphere but literally pivotal to the workings of the northern sky. Polar mythology is primary in all the great traditions. The pole star is axis mundi, and the way in which the constellations circle it - notably the Dipper, scooping up the waters of Ocean through the seasons - constitutes the essential motifs of Hindoo and Chinese spirituality especially. This fact was underlined for the present author in many temples and sacred places he visited. The symbolism of the pole star and the cosmology centred on the pole star is everywhere. In some Chinese temples it is perfectly explicit; star maps adorn the altars. Even more ubiquitous, seen throughout the whole of Asia, is the sacred symbol of the hyperborean swastika which depicts the Dipper circling the axial centre, as in this diagram:

You cannot see this from the southern hemisphere. The author was happy to see it with his own eyes. Yet the pole star itself, he discovers, is unspectacular. It is surprsingly dim, isn't it? It is hardly a blazing feature of the firmament. Its importance only becomes obvious through sustained stargazing throughout the revolving tides of the year. 

Some things in the northern skyscape, though, are immediately striking. The three bright stars of Orion draw attention, in the right circumstances, to the enduring importance of Sothis, Sirius, the 'Shining One', which is indeed a blazing feature of the firmament and often dominates the night. It is visible in the south too, of course - the brightest star in the heavens the world over - but in the south it is seen from a different (reversed) perspective. The long history of human fascination with Sothis is not difficult to understand. On one night in eastern India it shone like a diamond high above the Arabian Sea, its light reflecting upon the dark, sedate waters. In Lombok, late at night, it was particularly clear, shining with a steady, intense white-blue light under the black silhouettes of hills, cliff tops, forests and volcanos. There is the Sun, the Moon, and then there is Sothis, the so-called Dog Star, which has loomed large in human mythology and starlore since the beginnings of the human adventure. On one occasion on his travels the author saw it in a classical arrangement with the three stars of Orion pointing to its brilliant presence low in the sky during the depths of the night. This is the arrangement of stars that some suppose is alluded to in the Three Kings and Star of Bethlehem story in Christian mythology, as in the picture below. It is not so obvious when seen in southern climes. In the northern hemisphere, at certain times of the year, it is too plain to be overlooked.

*
*  *
*  *  * 

This star-gazing, in turn, has set the author to consideration (exactly the right word, to con + sider, sidereal = star) of one of the key cultural representations of stellar mythology in the western tradition, the Star trump in the tarot. The possibility that the story of the three kings describes a particular arrangement of stars, and that the 'Star in the East' that the kings pursue is Sothis, reminds him that the earliest representations of the Star trump in the tarot depict that mythologem. Thus:

The first question to be answered regarding this tarot card is: what star is it that is being depicted? The most likely answer, surely, is Sothis. Let us note, for start, that this card is one of three that form a set and a sequence, the 'celestial' trumps: The Star, the Moon, the Sun. These seem to be deliberately arranged in the traditional tarot sequence in order of increasing luminosity. The Sun is the brightest object in the sky. Before it comes the Moon, the second brightest. And before the Moon card is The Star, the third brightest object in the sky - in which case it would follow that the star in question is Sothis. 

The identification of the star on the trump with the Star of Bethlehem is made explicit again in some modern tarot designs, such as this:

But it also seems to be the relevant identification in other early designs that show a handsome youth who, in context, is most likely King David (the star being King David's star, Bethlehem indicating the House of David and the Davidic royal line). Thus:

The context of this iconography, of course, is Renaissance Italy and when we compare this crude sketch of a male figure with the classical David we see the resemblance, thus:

To reiterate: these early designs are concerned with the Star of Bethlehem, the Star of David - simple Christian symbolism. When Christians think of stars it is the star that presided over the birth of Christ that must come first to their minds. The earliest tarot designs have this basic Christian meaning. Arguably, the star in question is Sothis, third most luminous object in the sky, and the star to which the "three kings" of "Orion's belt" point.

*
*  *
*  *  * 

At a certain juncture in the development of tarot symbolism, however, this simple Christian symbolism became complicated with a different iconography and the three kings of the east, or King David, as the case may be, were replaced by a female figure. It seems that this first occurred in northern Italy in the late 1400s. This is the symbolism that became standard and which continues in the tarot to this day. It introduces a second question regarding this trump: who is the female figure on the card? 

Again, many of the early designs deviate quite markedly from the later ones. Here, for instance, is one of the early depictions of the 'Star':

This is not Christian symbolism: it is pagan allegory. The female figure is most likely Ourania, the ancient Greek muse of astronomy in her night-blue attire. The star, in that case, need not be a specific star but is merely generic although, again, Sothis must be regarded as the prime candidate simply because it is the brightest star in the sky. Sothis is THE star, per se. 

Whatever the case, a female figure, rather than kings and David, makes her appearance, and in tarot designs thereafter the star is associated with a woman. Most likely, too, another factor assisted this shift. In some early sets of trumps the Christian virtues, personified in the medieval manner, appear in place of some of the now familiar designs. In such cases, the virtue of Hope (as in the trinity Faith, Hope and Charity) appears in place of the Star. Thus the female figure who later appeared on the cards is an adaptation of Hope, and indeed this positive attribution has continued to be part of the divinatory meanings ascribed to the card by cartomancers. 

On the other hand, this same woman becomes naked in the course of the transformation of the card designs and she thus appears to be the same female figure who appears on the Temperance card, the World card and elsewhere in the iconography of the trumps. In this respect she seems to be a representation of Anima Mundi - the World Soul - of Christo-Neoplatonic cosmology who was routinely depicted as a naked woman in this way. The World card, the last in the sequence of trumps, in particular, seems to confirm this identification. As with all the tarot trumps, the Star card is, we can see, a convergence of many different streams of late medieval and Renaissance symbolism, both pagan and Christian, iconographical and moral.

*
*  *
*  *  * 

It will be noted that in all the various designs of the star trump considered thus far there is no appearance of the waters that feature in the later designs. Historically, this is a late element in the design. First there is the star - some early designs simply show a star with no other details, as in the so-called Rosenwold Sheet, an uncut printing of card designs. See below:

Secondly, the female figure appears with the star, replacing kings and male figures. But only later does this female figure become associated with water. In the design that became normative, of course, she is holding pitchers of water and pouring them out. Star. Woman. Waters. These are the components of what became the traditional design. 

How then do we explain the appearance of water in the Star card, and how is water associated with (a) the star and (b) the woman? This is the third of the three questions to which the trump design gives rise. What are the waters we see on the card? There are three questions to be answered: 

What star is it? 
Who is the woman? 
What are the waters? 

On the face of it, the appearance of the water in the symbolism of the card seems to reinforce the view that the star in question is Sothis. The connection coincides with the ancient Egyptian themes that many have detected in the tarot trumps. No doubt, claims that the tarot is of ancient Egyptian origin are unfounded in themselves, but certain iconographical themes in the traditional designs, albeit of Italian origin, do seem to perpetuate motifs that go back to ancient Egypt. The Egyptian association of Sothis with the cycles of the Nile - and the star with water - is an association that persists in Europe well beyond ancient times. One can make a good case that this is why water appears in the symbolism of the card. The cycles of Sothis are related to the flooding of the Nile and hence, by extension, to fertility and irrigation. What star is it? Sothis. The water symbolism of the card tells us so. No other star has such a long-standing and archetypal association with water.

In that case, as many commentators suppose, the woman depicted may be meant to signify some Egyptian deity related to Sothis, most usually nominated as the goddess Isis. This, at least, would satisfactorily answer our three questions. The star is Sothis. The woman is Isis. The waters are the waters of the Nile. What has happened in the evolution of the card, then, is that these Egyptian motifs have been collected together in conjunction with the other streams of ideas such as Hope and Ourania and the Neoplatonic World-Soul. The final element in the design, the bird in the tree - almost always identified as an ibis - is likely to have been imported as part of this Egyptification at much the same time. 

*

*  *

*  *  *

There are, all the same, other questions to be answered and other considerations that might count against such neat identifications. The tarot designs are complex and their origins and history notoriously obscure. There is much scope for speculation. Nothing is ever simple. What are we to make of the posture of the woman on the card, for instance, and her act of pouring out the water? In some early designs she holds a single pitcher and pours the water into a river (or other body of water, the sea?) In what became the canonical design she is holding two pitchers or jugs and is pouring one onto land and one into the body of water. What symbolism is afoot here? And why is she positioned as she is? 

As historians of the tarot relate, the prototype for the two vessels of water would seem to be alchemical depictions of the mermaid Melusine of folklore, an allegorical figure representing the conjunctio oppositorum, the union of opposites. In alchemical iconography she is depicted expressing milk from one breast and blood from the other, as below:

This is probably French symbolism, although the legends of Melusine were known in Cyprus and may have come into Italy through certain Milanese-Cypriot connections. Some tarot designs, old and new, are clearly related to this iconography as the following two versions of the Star card show. Without drawing attention to vulgar colloquialisms, the breasts of the mermaid become the 'jugs' of the female figure on the card, a somewhat obvious adaptation: 

In any case, the mere fact of water in the design becomes further complicated with the importation of the idea of duality, two jugs (pitchers) - the two breasts of the female figure - and the idea, by extension, that the two vessels contain two different waters or waters for two different purposes. Blood and milk in the Melusine symbolism signifies the salty and the sweet respectively. It is a fair surmise, then, that the two vessels of water represent the two types of water, salty and fresh (or sweet). This distinction is then formalized in the tarot design by having the female figure pour one vessel into the body of water (the salt water of the sea) and one on land (the fresh water of the rivers). At the time that this further distinction was made the female figure was turned around to be facing the left rather than the right and she was given a distinctive posture. This again, as historians of the tarot have remarked, is not unprecedented. The female figure seems to have been adapted to the typical posture of personifications of the zodiacal sign Aquarius, the Water-bearer, in medieval astrological symbolism, thus:

The basis for this further collapsing together and blending of symbolisms is plain. The evolution of the figure on the card now identifies her as water-bearer and a figure of conjoined opposites represented by the two modes of water, salty and sweet. In this we see astrological and alchemical influences upon the design, co-mingling with all the others we have noted, until it arrives at its canonical form, thus:

   

In a Christian context, this final symbolism is rich in allusions. Let us note, for example, a passage from the Revelation of John, 10:1-2:  

And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven... and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth.  

*
*  *
*  *  *

It occurs to the present author, all the same, that there are other possible interpretations of this symbolism. One further feature of the design requires an explanation, and it suggests that perhaps a quite different order of symbolism was in play during the development of the trump. In the early designs, as we saw above, there was often just a single star depicted upon the card. It was almost always eight-pointed. In the canonical design this eight-pointed star blazing in the centre of the card is accompanied by seven smaller stars. These, presumably, represent the seven planets, or alternatively, it is conceivable that they represent the seven sisters, the Pleiades, since that grouping of stars is in the same proximity as Sothis. But the seven stars appear quite late in the evolution of the design. As we see in the examples depicted above, when the Melusine motif of two jugs (breasts) - the conjunction of opposites - was introduced there were four stars, not seven, accompanying the central star. Here it is again:

The stages of development, then, were one star, then four, then seven. The question is: how many additional stars should there be and what do they represent? 

If there are seven stars then we have some reasonable answers to the second part of this question. The additional stars represent either the planets or perhaps the Pleiades. But what of the four stars? When four stars were added to the design, what did they represent in the mind of the designer? The additional stars seem to be added to the design at the same time that water became associated with the star, and at first there were four stars, not seven. What, then, do four stars represent? The seven stars of the canonical design, it will be noticed, tend to be arranged somewhat awkwardly and are crowded in the given space. Designs with four stars on the other hand have a natural symmetry: the large star is in the centre and the four stars are arranged neatly around it. Perhaps the four stars are simply decorative devices just as the seven stars are instances of Hermetic exuberance? But that is unlikely. Every detail of all the tarot trumps seem to be deliberate. The designs may be arcane and there may indeed be a confusion, a hotch-potch, of various types of symbolism, but no details seem to be unintelligent or merely aesthetic. 

There is, however, no natural correlative to the four stars. Seven planets or the seven sisters (Pleiades) are natural models, but there is no natural set of four stars except, perhaps, the great Southern Cross, but that is a feature of the southern skies, not the northern. Most likely, then, they represent the four directions and/or the four seasons. The large star that they surround, therefore, takes on the symbolism of the centre, the axis. We have a central star and around it four smaller stars representing north, south, east and west and/or winter, spring, summer and autumn. But if that is the case, then we must question whether the central star is Sothis for it does not naturally carry such four-square significances. The star that does is, rather, Polaris, the pole star. Sothis is the brightest star in the heavens, but it is not, for all of that, axial. The pole star is dim to the eyes but it is the star around which the whole cosmos turns. 

It seems to the present author, in any case, that certain elements in the design of this trump might be better explained if we take the star to be the pole star rather than Sothis, or perhaps what we have is an overlapping of two different orders of symbolism. There are two great stars in the northern heavens. Sothis is the brightest. Polaris is the most axial. They are significant in two different ways. Perhaps, then, both stars come together in the Star trump? Perhaps they are interchangeable? Many of the themes we have considered might conceivably apply to both of these stars. We said, for instance, that Sothis is naturally associated with water, and it is by virtue of its association with the waters of the Nile, but the Dipper that, as we saw, circles the pole star, is conceived mythologically as a water-scoop that dips down into the waters of Ocean and irrigates the heavenly meadows. Thus, although it is perhaps less obvious and less appreciated, we might just as well attribute the water symbolism of the card to the pole star as to Sothis. 

In this respect, let us note - as some commentators have in the past - the fact that the female figure in the later designs is in a peculiar posture of arms and legs that somewhat resembles the swastika. Let us see her again:

It is clear from other tarot trumps - consider the Emperor card or the Hanging Man, for example - that the arms and legs of the figures are often made to form symbolic shapes. The Emperor's legs makle the sign of the planet Jupiter, for instance, and the Hanging Man's crossed leg makes the alchemical glyph for sulphur. Such devices are well established in tarot symbolism. In the canonical design, the naked water-bearer on the Star trump is very deliberately depicted with her arms and legs in a peculiar arrangement, and that arrangement strongly suggests the four arms of the swastika. 

We can explain that peculiarity by assuming that the star above her is the pole star. Other symbolism follows. In the Soofi tradition of the Mahometans - to draw upon another order of symbols for the sake of elucidation for a moment - much is made of various Koranic references to the "two seas" and their meeting place. These "two seas" are the two modes of water, salty and sweet. Their meeting place is the so-called bazahk, a symbolic notion of that place, the "heart", where a being of the physical world (the salty waters) can encounter the spiritual (the sweet). Such ideas are crucial to Soofi spirituality and by extension feature in Mahometan alchemy as well. By further extension, these same alchemical ideas inform the occidental alchemical tradition too, and this is what we find in the symbolism of the Star card insofar as it is alchemical. What this amounts to is this: that the bazahk, the meeting place of the "two seas", the physical and spiritual realms, is in the heart, the centre of one's being, and so to reach that place is to return to the spiritual centre, the axis of one's Self. The pole star has exactly such significances in a cosmological sense. The axis is where the "two seas" meet. 

One can interpret the Star card of the tarot in these terms. There is much more that one can say. Again, the symbolism of the tarot is rich and multivalent. These considerations are, at least, a starting point. In the first instance the meaning of the card is Sothic. The star is Sirius. But other streams of symbolism converge in its iconography. In particular, the axial symbolism of the pole star very well accounts for many of the themes of this card. The star is not only Sirius, but Polaris as well. 

Yours,

Harper McAlpine Black

Nieuwenkamp in Bali

The earliest European artist to record the landscape and people of the beautiful tropical island of Bali in the Dutch East Indies was Wijnand Otto Jan Nieuwenkamp, who signed himself W. O. J. N. Self-taught, prolific, versatile, a compulsive traveller from an early age, he journeyed to Bali six times among travels to Egypt, British India, Malaya, Sumatra, Java as well as many tours throughout Europe, drawing, painting and writing with sympathetic eyes everywhere he went. He was an especially restless orientalist. It was his life's work to explore the lands of the east and use those experiences as the material for his art. His personal motto was: Vagando Acquiro - As I wander, I acquire. 

His relationship to Bali and the adjacent island of Lombok - unspoilt paradises in his time - was especially strong. Amongst other things, he was the first man to ever ride a bicycle on the islands. This made a lasting impression on the native people; he appears in Balinese temple art as the legendary bicycle rider as in the picture below from a temple in northern Bali:

Nieuwenkamp on his bicycle

The present writer has been travelling through the islands of the East Indies in recent times, and has covered much of the same territory Nieuwenkamp covered in the first half of the XXth century.  Needless to say, over a hundred years much has changed. Bali, and increasingly Lombok, are now tourist havens crowded with beach-goers, tour guides, touts, resorts, hotels, minibuses and bars. Nieuwenkamp's bicycle has been replaced by the incessant noise of a million motorbikes. It is still (just) possible, however, to wander away from the main towns and resorts and to find areas of simple village life that remain relatively unchanged. In particular, the author has taken day treks into the interior of Lombok and found areas that are more or less pristine, populated by villagers still living a more or less traditional life of poultry keeping and subsistence farming. This gives some idea of the type of world Nieuwenkamp must have encountered during his journeys. 

Below is a photograph the author took during one of his walks around Lombok:

Nieuwenkamp was essentially a graphic artist. Drawing and design are his primary arts. In the Netherlands he has left his mark as a designer of boats and as an architect. In the East Indies he turned to painting but in this continued the habits of a graphic artist, never succumbing to painterly techniques. He adapted the graphic skills he had honed in his early life to the new medium of painting while retaining a rhythmical sense of line and decoration. It is this, along with a marked flatness and stylization that gives his paintings a strong oriental sense. This is precisely what makes them so appealing. There is no wedge driven between the graphic and the painterly. 

As we know, the expressionism of his age retreated from graphic elements in painting, ostensibly to let painting be painting. But this ended up with a mess of blobs and smears of paint across the canvas as content and craft surrendered to emotion and the expressive properties of colour. In large measure, this is where European painting in the XXth century went astray, culminating in the talentless vomit of abstract expressionism. Readers of this current journal will note that the tastes of the present writer lie elsewhere, and Nieuwenkamp is a very fine example of exactly the elements in art that he most values. The famous catch-cry 'There are no lines in nature' heralded an aesthetic disaster, for it signalled the end of intellectual art, properly speaking, for the line is exactly the interface of man and nature and to reject it is to abdicate the first premise of human representation. Nieuwenkamp has a beautiful sense of line. Here are some examples:

And here, below, are some paintings - the same sense of line and graphic skills adapted to painting with flat areas of colour and a strong emphasis upon pattern and elements of decorative design. These elements, let us note, are entirely in keeping with the native arts of Bali and other such places. What we find in Nieuwenkamp, as in the work of the best of the orientalist artists, is a beautiful synergy of European observation and skill with an oriental sense of linear rhythm. Orientalist art is uninteresting when it is merely oriental subject matter captured in an unadapted European style. Far more interesting are synergistic meetings of east and west. This is what we find in Nieuwenkamp. 

The present writer, at least, adopts this as a general principle, as various posts to this journal testify. It is the synthesis of east and west, or rather the western appropriation and adaptation of oriental motifs (in art, culture, language and everything else, even spirituality) that he loves, the east seen through western eyes or, even better, reimagined through the orientalist vision.

Click on any of the pictures for enlarged views:

Regrettably, much of Nieuwenkamp's work remains unpublished and unseen. Although he was meticulous and exacting and had a habit of destroying work that did not meet his own standards, he was prolific and produced a very considerable body of drawings, paintings and travel writings. As the examples on this page show, he deserves to be appreciated by a much wider audience and towards this it is to be hoped that more of his work is made available to the public in future years. 

It is also regretable that his artistic legacy in Bali is now increasingly obscured by the crass commercialism of the tourist trade. There are small havens of art and culture on Bali and Lombok today - such as Ubud in central Bali - but in the larger centres, such as Dempasar, Legian, Mataram, there are few signs of a robust artistic culture. The native people maintain their temples and their religious traditions (a fascinating lost branch of early Hindooism), and one can hear gamalan and see statuary of the traditional gods and demons of the islands at gateways and portals, but the tasteless superficiality of the tourist trade is otherwise quite advanced. A sure sign of this is the graffiti throughout the towns. (Graffiti, this author finds, is always a telling symptom of cultural health.) It is the same Afro-American graffiti of urban America that one finds in all outposts of globalized degeneracy. The art stores sell bogus batiks and kitsch portraits of island girls. In the towns, at least, the lyrical beauty of Nieuwenkamp's Bali is very hard to find.

Yours,

Harper McAlpine Black  

Territorialist Islam

Sitting in the quiet and civilized company of south Asian diaspora Chinese reading and sipping oolong tea, the ambience is suddenly interrupted by the blaring and intrusive nasal cacophony of the Mahometan call to prayer blasted through massive amplifiers from the nearby mosque. This is Malaya, but it is the same across the border in Siam, and the same in Java and much of northern Hindoostan too. Armed with electric sound systems the Mahometans now see fit to bombard their neighbours with the peel of the ‘adzan’: "Alahoo akbaa, Alahoo akbaa…. There is no god but God, and we won’t tolerate anyone who disagrees." The electric amplifier has become the weapon of choice for Saracens in such places. It sounds off five times a time, most aggrievedly at five or four o’clock in the morning lest the faithful, and anyone within earshot, should be so impious as to prefer sleep to banging their foreheads on the ground in a show of submission to Mooselman law. 

On his recent journeys throughout the Indian subcontinent, and then the Malaccan Straits, and yet more recently throughout the islands of the East Indies, it has become perfectly evident to the present writer that, more than being a “call to prayer” – hurry to prayer! hurry to prayer! – the adzan is, first and foremost, a territorial device. It is the way that the Mooselmans mark their territory in the same way a dog urinates on a lamp-post.

For Mahometanism, in both its historical and contemporary forms, is above all else a creed of territorialism, and it remains so in a manner that stands in contrast to modern Christianity which, by and large, has dropped its territorial pretensions. Christians, that is, some time ago gave up on the territorial entity once called ‘Christendom’, while the Saracens have clung to the notion of a territorial ‘House of Islam’. These are functions, no doubt, of the colonial and then the post-colonial eras. Colonialism in its first phases concerned an extension of ‘Christendom’ but this narrow notion was then sublimated to a more universal worldview. After all, the first purpose of the Christian faith was to dissolve particularisms in order to accommodate the civilizing mission of the Roman Empire. One suspects it was created for this very purpose. Counter- and post-colonial Mahometanism, in contrast, has failed to universalize. On the contrary, with the collapse of the Ottomans and the rise of the fundamentalist Wahhabis it has ossified into a virulent cult of anti-colonial rectitude – it is this that it shares with progressives and Leftists, the Whigs of the West. The cry of Alahoo akbar is at the same time the cry of “Colonialists Out!” Every advance of modernity, every overture of internationalism, no matter how sane, is greeted as a colonialist infringement. In the Mahometan worldview there are two types of places: the Darasalaam, the House of Peace, and the Darasalhaab, the House of War. Peace, to the Mahometan means submission to Islamic Law. The Call to Prayer, when it is blasted across non-Muslim neighbourhoods, means exactly ‘we are coming to subdue you’ until you submit.

In Malaya of recent times matters have grown increasingly uncomfortable for the Chinese minority. Under Wahhabi influence the otherwise moderate modes of Malayan Mohametanism – restrained by the civilizing hand of the British as it was, it must be said – has hardened into more territorial forms. That is, the Malays increasingly regard Malaya as Mooselman territory and increasingly embrace all the geopolitical consequences that follow from that fact. We see the same happening in the East Indies. The Mooselman activists – conspicuously fired by anti-colonial rhetoric, let us note – are pushing for laws that would make alcohol prohibited throughout all the lands of the Indonesian archipelago. They see this as simply formalizing a fact, namely that such lands are Mooslem lands, and they – being good Mooselmen – have a duty and an obligation to impose the laws of God upon God’s land. This is their whole mentality. They deplore “innovation”. It is a simple reality to which they subscribe. There is the territory of God and the territory of Shatan. The Islamic project is simple: turn the latter into the former. Non-Mooslem minorities are exposed to this mindset. The Chinese in the Malay peninsula, the Hindoos in Bali and other pockets of East Asia are increasingly besieged. 

The scene of the Bali nightclub bombing in 2002

Moreover, this same territorial ideology is shaped by the distinctly militant and aggressive history of Mohametan territorial expansion. The present author stood recently at the memorial marking the place of the bombings of a nightclub in Legian (Kuta) in the Balinese islands. There, in October 2002, Mahometan militants ignited a series of bombs that killed hundreds of young people, most of them Australian, who were that night enjoying music and beer during their holidays in the island getaway. A further bomb targeted the American embassy in Bali at the same time – Alahoo akbaa! – Colonialists out! The justification for such a heinous act was, and is, in the Mahometan mind quite straightforward; the logic is this: 1. Indonesia is a Muslim nation. 2. Alcohol and modern immorality is forbidden in Islam. 3. If it requires force to cleanse Islamic soil of such pollutants, then so be it. 4. The Prophet – peace be upon him - would do the same. 

On his travels throughout Java the present writer found to his dismay that there was a large swell of sympathy for this mentality among the Javanese. They shrug their shoulders, look you in the eye and say “But this is Muslim land!” The Indonesian government rounded up a few of those who committed that particular atrocity, executed a few of them eventually, but others remained at large and the so-called “school”, madrassa, in central Java at which they all studied and were indoctrinated in the ideology of territorial Islam was not touched and remains active to this day. One cannot but remember this fact when one hears the call to prayer. It signifies: this is Mahometan land. Mahometan law prevails here. Flouting of Islamic norms will not be tolerated, and if the pious resort to violence it is, after all, an act of religion, or in fact an act of love, the purpose of which is to restore existential ‘peace’ (for Islaam = the religion of salaam.)

One encounters versions and degrees of this ideology everywhere in the so-named ‘Daraslaam’. A conspicuous and tragic instance of it persists in modern Palestine. Among the Mooselman Palestinians there is a prevailing insistence that territorial compromises are not only undesirable but impious and “contrary to religion”. The writer recalls seeing a representative of this tragic people in a television interview during which the representative was asked repeatedly why he could not even countenance a territorial compromise with the Israelis. “It is not that we do not want to,” he explained, exasperated. “You must understand. We cannot! It is against our religion.” His exasperation was born of the realization that outsiders see his position as merely obstinate. No, he was not being obstinate. Rather, his hands are tied. There is nothing he can do. He means, by this, that under Mooselman Law (in all its permutations) there is simply no provision for conceding so much as an inch of territory. The best he, and the Palestinians, can offer is a postponement of the issue. The soil cannot be conceded. Not ever. Once land is under Mooselman rule it remains Allah’s forever, until Judgment Day. But Mooselman Law does allow for a “truce” that “postpones” the obligation to fight for the aforesaid soil. Thus the Palestinians cannot, will not, will not ever, concede a single inch of ground to the Israelis, and cannot, will not, will not ever, recognize the right of Israel to exist, for this is simply impossible – inconceivable – under all shades of Mooselman Law. Even the possibility of a postponement of the issue is a legal stretch, however. It is only possible as a military strategy. In fact, in actuality, the obligation to fight to restore Islamic soil to Islam is absolute and binding upon all of the faithful. It is this intractably territorial and necessarily militant ideology that dooms the Palestinians to their on-going predicament today.

Palestine, indeed, is a microcosm of the tragic state of affairs that prevails in the Mooselman faith more generally. The Saracen is trapped in a medieval territorial mindset that is invigorated by and overlaps with the resentful and venomous ideology of Whig anti-colonialism. It is this, above all, that guarantees that the Mahometan world is doomed to remain a failed modernity. This has been appallingly clear to this present writer throughout his many travels. Nothing quite prepares one for the glaring realities of a trip through Pakistan, for example. There are many modernities, and among them are successful ones and unsuccessful ones. Japan, for instance, is a case of a successful modernity. Post-Maoist China too. Singapore, certainly. Hong Kong. Taiwan. The eastern Asians have been determined to make the most of the inescapable facts of modernity and in this have often been able to safeguard important features of traditional life in doing so. But the same cannot be said of most parts of the world where a Mahometan majority population prevails. 

The present author recalls showing some young, educated ostensibly “modern” Malayan students (engineers, medical students etc.) pictures of the Cordoba mosque in Spain and explaining, since it was news to them, that Spain had been Muslim some 500 years ago. They reacted with horror. Here was Islamic land now ruled by Christians? The shame! The shame! The reaction of one of these students was that Muslims must – must! it is an obligation as binding as five prayers a day! – fight to restore this land (Andalusia) to Allah. He was not joking.

On the whole, one must count the Islamic world – such as it is – a case of a failed modernity. Need one mention the festering pusule that is the entirety of modern Mesopotamia? At the core of this failure is the whining territorial obsession that bleats from the loud-speakers of mosques at every prayer time. This is what is at the heart of Mahometan extremism and jihad ideology too. It is no mystery. There is now a self-perpetuating industry of Leftist academics devoted to unraveling the “sociological problem” of extremist Islam. More often than not such academics share the same anti-colonialist underpinnings of this ideology. In fact, we might say they are gazing at a deformed reflection of their own pathological worldview. This explains their duplicity and double-talk and such extraordinary Orwellian nonsense as the argument that confronting jihadism “only makes it stronger” – the risible paradox that those who denounce and warn of Mahometan extremism “fall into the extremist’s trap” while those who advocate a self-despising and accommodationist multiculturalism and open borders will somehow defeat them with kindness and cuddles in the end. With such “experts”, you see, it is always the West that is to blame. Whereas, in fact, jihadism has two obvious causes and it does not take a taxpayer funded Left-wing think-tank to work it out: it is the conjunction of two abiding themes in Mahometan orthodoxy, namely militant aggression and religious territorialism. Those who claim that jihadi ideology is not incidental but innate to the Mahometan faith are right. The “experts” – listen to them - will tell you it is just an (understandable) reaction to colonialist oppression. But in reality it goes much deeper than neat sociological reflexes. It is, unfortunately, an indelible feature of all versions of an unreconstructed Islam. The die was cast when the Wahhabis took control of modern Islam. The Mooselmans as a whole have failed to restructure and rethink and reform the faith into any shape that might reasonably negotiate a successful modernity. The opportunities to do it, especially in the XIXth and early XXth centuries, were squandered. Now the sad fact is that the Mahometan world is burdened with a totalitarian religious creed that will fail them at every turn of the modern era.

What solutions might be possible? How might the Mahometan faith proceed otherwise? How might it be “reconstructed”? These are huge questions and we cannot consider them in any detail here, although the simple facts of the matter are that (a) Islam is not going to go away and (b) it cannot continue as it is. One can see little or no prospect of change, though, and so in any foreseeable future a deepening tragedy is the only likelihood. The Straits Chinese in Malaya seem resigned to this. The Hindoos in the East Indies will eventually be confronted with the fact that Islamic chauvinism will dictate the future of Indonesia too. Recent events in Turkey – the collapse of Attarturk’s secular Turkey and the European dream - need to be acknowledged in this context too. And Palestine? Impossible. Yet a path must be found eventually, and it must surely be found from within Mahometanism itself. There is simply no other choice. Perhaps the only path that can be discerned is in Soofic sublimation. Territorialism can be universalized. And the jihad can be turned to the ‘greater Jihad’ that is the war against the false ego, the nafs, which is to say that the militant spirit of the Mahometan might, conceivably, be internalized since this is an established theme in Mooselman spirituality already. There are no answers to be seen in externalist Islam, though. Not in any of its current manifestations. The plain truth is that the ossification of the Wahhabi revolution was a catastrophe for Islamic religion. It doomed modern Islam to the juvenile literalism of Salafism, a stance utterly incapable of addressing the complexities of modernity in any meaningful sense. There is really no hope for the Mahometans until the fall of the House of Saud at very least and, after that, until the disease of Salafism is erased from the global Ummah. Any fair assessment for this most likely extends to generations hence, if ever. The irony is that the call to prayer includes the phrase “Hurry to success! Hurry to success!” In today’s unreconstructed Islam those who answer that call are hastening to failure. 

Yours,

Harper McAlpine Black