But Just Because She To Trace The Tribal To Our House While The Man: Fill & Download for Free

Olive Oatman- Possibly the First Tattooed Caucasian American WomanOlive Oatman after she was ransomed (Olive Oatman - Wikipedia)2012 was the first year in which more women than men were tattooed in the U.S (twenty-three per cent of women, compared with nineteen per cent of men).[1] Tattoos appeal to contemporary women both as emblems of empowerment in an era of feminist gains and as badges of self-determination at a time when controversies about abortion rights, date rape, and sexual harassment have made them think hard about who controls their bodies—and why.[2]For thousands of years, across numerous cultures, women have tattooed themselves as a symbol of maturity, affiliation and cultural heritage. In the early 19th century, tattoos had long been associated with criminals, sailors, the underworld and native peoples- individuals occupying the fringes of America society.[3] So how did people react when a young teenage girl returned to mainstream society after living with a Mojave tribe for several years with a distinctive and permanent blue tattoo symbolizing her inclusiveness with the Mojave?Olive Oatman was a fourteen-year-old girl whose family was killed in 1851 in present-day Arizona by Native Americans, possibly the Yavapai, who captured and enslaved Olive and her sister. A year later Mojave Indians adopted the two girls. After four years with the Mojave, during which time her sister died of starvation, Olive returned to white society. Her story has been told, retold and embellished so many times – in the media and in her own memoir and speeches – that the truth is not easy to discern.Born into the family of Royce and Mary Ann Oatman in Illinois in 1837, Olive was one of seven children who grew up in the Mormon religion. Royce Oatman conducted a mercantile business, until the economic decline of 1842, when his business went bankrupt.[4] He moved temporarily to Pennsylvania for a time, but soon returned to Chicago, Illinois, where he engaged in farming. Having received a serious injury while assisting a neighbor dig a well,[5] Royce decided to go to New Mexico, where it was thought the milder climate would be beneficial.In 1850 they joined a wagon train led by James C. Brewster, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), whose attacks on, and disagreements with, the church leadership in Salt Lake City, Utah, had caused him to break with the followers of Brigham Young in Utah and lead his fol-lowers--Brewsterites--to California, which he claimed was the "intended place of gathering" for the Mormons.[6]Referred to in several books of the Bible as rich pastureland for cattle with rugged mountains and beautiful plains, Brewster believed Bashan to be the true Zion and that it was located at the confluence of the Gila and Colorado Rivers.[7]In the days of the Oregon Trail, travelers headed West were exposed to serious dangers, but many of them packed up and left the East anyway.[8] Along with the enticing Gold Rush, there was another promise drawing settlers across the continent: the Mormon holy lands in Utah and California. With so many white travelers crossing through Native American tribal lands in the plains and desert, it was only a matter of time before conflicts started to arise.[9] There were numerous reports of settlers clashing with natives, usually over issues stemming from lack of resources in a part of the country where water and food was already scarce.[10]The Brewsterite emigrants, numbering close to 90, left Independence, Missouri, August 5, 1850.[11]Dissension caused the group to split near Santa Fe in New Mexico Territory, with Brewster following the northern route. The Oatmans and several other families chose the southern route via Socorro, Santa Cruz, and Tucson.[12] Near Socorro, Royce Oatman took command of the remaining wagons. They reached New Mexico Territory early in 1851 only to find the terrain and climate extremely unfavorable. Consequently, they abandoned the idea of reaching the mouth of the Colorado River.When they reached Maricopa Wells, they learned that the trail ahead was rough and the Indians hostile.[13] The other families decided to stay at Maricopa Wells, but this was not what Royce Oatman had envisioned for his family. He was determined to find a place where he could build a future for his seven children, who ranged in age from one to seventeen. Eight of the wagons followed the Rio Grande-Gila route with Royse Oatman at the helm.[14] With a shift in his objective and a new determination to go to California, Oatman led his party with little mercy. They rode long and hard under the sun’s oppressive heat and atop the unruly terrain, and when several of his oxen collapsed from exhaustion and members of the crew wanted to stop and rest, Oatman forged on with his family, fearing that his stock would perish before reaching California.Site of the Oatman massacre (Olive Oatman - Wikipedia)On the fourth day of their solo travels, a group of Native Americans approached them, requesting tobacco, guns and food. Olive later identified them as Apaches, commonly assumed, at the time, to encompass a variety of dangerous Southwest tribes, her captors were probably much less notorious.[15] Their proximity to the murder site, regular contact with the Mohave Indians, hunter-gatherer lifestyle and small scale farming practices suggest they were one of four fluid groups of Yavapais.[16] Most likely they were Tolkepayas[17], a name that distinguishes them more geographically than culturally from other free-ranging yet interconnected Yavapais.On February 18, 1851, a group of Yavapai tribesmen attacked them Oatmans on the banks of the Gila River 80–90 miles east of what is now Yuma, Arizona. Royce, Mary and four of their children were killed at the scene, and fifteen-year-old son Lorenzo was badly injured.[18] Lorenzo regained consciousness to find his family killed and Olive and Mary Ann missing. He eventually reached a settlement where he was treated for his wounds, and rejoined the original wagon train.[19] Three days later, Lorenzo backtracked and found the bodies of his slain parents and siblings.Lorenzo and the men who accompanied him had no way of digging proper graves in the rocky soil, so they gathered the bodies together and formed a cairn over them.[20] It has been reported that the remains were reburied several times in the ensuing years, and Arizona pioneer Charles Poston supposedly moved them to the river for a final reinterment.[21]Olive, age 14, and Mary Ann, age 7, were captured and held as slaves at a village near the site of modern Congress, Arizona. They recollect that their attackers divided into two groups, one herding the animals and carrying the looted items while the others shepherded the captured girls about half a mile to a campsite.[22]Tied with ropes and forced to walk along the Arizonan desert, the girls' health suffered deeply; they became hungry and dehydrated. Whenever they asked for rest or water, they would be poked by their captors with lances. After a brief rest and some food, which the girls refused, they continued their march. By this time their captors had removed the girls’ shoes, knowing that would prevent their escape. Their feet were quickly bruised and bloodied by the volcanic rock.[23]The Reason This Woman From The Wild West Had A Tattoo On Her Face Is Frankly ChillingAfter arriving at the Yavapai rancheria, the girls were treated in a way that appeared threatening, and both feared they would be killed. However, they were used as slaves, forced to forage for food, carry water and firewood, and other menial tasks; they were frequently beaten and mistreated.[24] Mary Ann and Olive were forced to hard labor, and would be bothered by Yavapai children, who used sticks to burn them.[25]A year later, a group of Mojave Indians lead by a young woman who, Olive later learned, was the daughter of their chief, “beautiful, intelligent, well-spoken, fluent in the languages of both tribes,” and most importantly, sympathetic to the predicament of the girls,[26] visited the Yavapai village and traded two horses, vegetables, blankets, and other trinkets for the girls. Once the transaction was complete, they were forced to walk several hundred miles to a Mojave village where the Gila River met the Colorado River, near what is now Needles, California.[27]Tribal leader Espianola and his family immediately adopted Mary Ann and Olive Oatman.[28] The Mojave were more prosperous than the Yavapai, and both Espianola’s wife Aespaneo and daughter Topeka took an interest in the Oatman girls. Aespaneo arranged for the Oatman girls to be given plots of land to farm.[29] Olive expressed her deep affection for these two women numerous times over the years.Taken after her ransom, this photo of white Mormon Olive Oatman shows her blue cactus ink tattoo given to her on her chin by the Mohave who adopted her: five vertical lines, with triangles set at right angles. (Olive Oatman, the Pioneer Girl Abducted by Native Americans Who Returned a Marked Woman)Native Americans have extensive cultural traditions that involve tattooing, but each group has different customs. In the past, several factors affected their tattooing, such as the location of the group, the natural resources to which they had access, and the religion and creation stories in which they believed.A specific example is the Mojave tribe, which was known at least as far back as the 16th century by the Spanish. Located mainly in California and Arizona along the Colorado River, the tribe used ink from the blue cactus plant to tattoo adolescents as a rite of passage.[30]As with most North American Indians, they were fond of personal adornment. Two of their favorites were tattooing and body painting. Men and women would tattoo their chins and sometimes their foreheads. Both sexes would also paint striking designs on their faces, hair and body. There was no special guild of tattooists and most tattooing was done on people between the ages of 20 and 30. Part of the Mohave belief is that any man or woman without a tattoo on the face would be refused entrance to Sil'aid, the land of the dead. Their belief was so strong that black paint would be rubbed on the tattoo marks of the dead so they were more visible on judgment day. Because of this belief, many old folks who had not been tattooed in their youth were tattooed on their deathbeds.[31]The Mojave also got tattoos for luck and protection when heading into battle and for religious ceremonies.The Mojave marked both Oatman girls on their chins with indelible blue cactus tattoos in keeping with tribal custom. According to Mojave tradition, such marks were given only to their own people to ensure that they would have a good afterlife.[32]“[They] pricked the skin in small regular rows on our chins with a very sharp stick, until they bled freely,” Olive would later write.[33] The sticks were then dipped in weed juice and blue stone powder which was then applied to the pinpricks on the face.Mohave Indians, Illustrated by Balduin Möllhausen, during Lt. Amiel Weeks Whipple’s 1853-54 expedition (Heart Gone Wild - True West Magazine)Olive stated that Mary Ann died "about a year" before her own release in 1856.[34] Mary Ann, after 3–4 years with the Mojave, died of starvation during a famine in which many Mojave died as well.[35] In 1855, according to contemporary weather reports, the tribe experienced a severe drought and an accompanying shortage of food.Shortly before dying, she tried to comfort her sister by telling her "I have been a great deal of trouble to you, Olive. You will miss me for a while, but you will not have to work so hard when I'm gone."[36]Engraving of the death of Mary Ann Oatman (Mary Ann Oatman - Wikipedia)The date of Mary Ann's death is significant because it suggests that the two girls had at least partially assimilated into the tribe. Whether Olive and Mary Ann were truly adopted into that family and the Mojave people is unknown. Olive told one of the first reporters to interview her that the Mohaves always told her she was free to leave when she wanted to, but that they wouldn’t accompany her to the nearest white settlement for fear of retribution for having kept her for so long.[37] Since she didn’t know the way, she reasoned, she couldn’t go.Later she would claim that she and Mary Ann were captives and that she was afraid to leave. Yet it seems Olive grew accustomed to life with the Mohave. Over time she acclimated to their society and even began following their customs, taking on a clan name of Oach.[38] The Mohave referred the girls as “ahwe,” meant “stranger” or “enemy,” not “slave” or “captive.” The tribe loved teasing and obscene nicknames. Olive’s name, Spantsa (“unquenchable lust”) appeared on the travel pass that was sent by the U.S. army to the Mohave for her ransom.[39]When a group of railway surveyors under the command of Amiel Weeks Whipple visited the village in March 1854, she did not attempt to identify herself to the visitors.[40] Years later she met with a Mojave leader named Irataba in New York City and spoke with him of old times.[41] While Olive sometimes spoke with fondness of the Mojave, she became less positive about her experience over time; she may have suffered from Stockholm Syndrome.[42]Lorenzo Oatman (The Extraordinary Story of Olive Oatman)During the time the two girls were with the Mojave, their brother, Lorenzo Oatman continued to search for his sisters. At some point during the winter of 1855-56 the U.S. Army received word that Olive was living with the Mojave.When Olive was 19 years old, a Yuma Indian messenger named Francisco arrived at the village with a message from the authorities at Fort Yuma, which is in Imperial County, California, across the Colorado River from Yuma, Arizona.[43] Rumors were circulating that a white girl was living with the Mojave and the post commander requested her return – or to know why she chose not to return.The Mojave initially sequestered Olive and resisted the request, first denying that Olive was white. Over the course of negotiations, they also expressed their affection for Olive. Shortly thereafter Francisco made a second fervent attempt to persuade the Mojave to part with Olive, offering them blankets and a white horse in exchange, and he passed on threats that the whites would destroy the Mojave if they did not release Olive.[44]After some discussion, in which Olive was included, the Mojave decided to accept these terms. On February 28, 1856, Olive Oatman was ransomed and escorted on a twenty-day journey to Fort Yuma.[45] Topeka (daughter of Espianola and Aespaneo) went on the journey with Olive. She described the negotiations as follows:“I found that they had told Francisco that I was not American, that I was from a race of people much like the Indians, living away from the setting sun. They had painted my face, and hands, and feet of a dun, dingy color that was unlike that of any race I ever saw. This they told me they did to deceive Francisco; and that I must not talk to him in American. They told me to talk to him in another language, and to tell him that I was not American. Then they waited to hear the result, expecting to hear my gibberish nonsense, and to witness the convincing effect upon Francisco. But I spoke to him in broken English, and told him the truth, and also what they had enjoined me to do. He started from his seat in a perfect rage, vowing that he would be imposed upon no longer.”Before entering Fort Yuma, Olive insisted she be given proper clothing, as she was clad in a traditional Mojave skirt with no covering above her waist.[46] She washed the paint from her face, the dye from her hair, and dress in appropriate Western clothing before entering the fort. Inside the fort, Olive was surrounded by cheering people. Within a few days, she discovered her brother Lorenzo was alive and had been looking for her. Their reunion made headlines across the West.Olive cried into her hands when she was delivered to the U.S. Army at Fort Yuma. She paced the floor and wept at night after she and Lorenzo moved to Oregon to live near their cousins. A friend described her as a “grieving, unsatisfied woman” who longed to return to the Mohave.[47] When Olive heard that a tribal dignitary named Irataba was traveling to New York in 1864, she went to visit him.[48] Interviews given after her return to society indicated that her time woth the Mojave was not the Indian nightmare so mamy expected.There are numerous unsubstantiated rumors that Olive was married to the son of the Mojave chief and that she gave birth to two boys when married to him.[49] The Arizona Republican in Phoenix, dated 30 April 1922, reported “opening skirmish of one of the most interesting legal battles in the history of Mohave county . . . in Oatman Court of Domestic Relations when John Oatman, wealthy Mohave Indian, was sued for divorce by his wife, Estelle Oatman . . . John Oatman claims to be the grandson of Olive Oatman, famous in Arizona history.”[50]Contrary to stories circulating after her release, Olive almost certainly didn’t marry a Mohave or bear his children. If she had, it would have been a highly unusual, thus memorable, piece of tribal history. However, Olive did confess to a friend (according to the friend) that she had married a Mohave man and had two sons with him – and that her depression upon returning to society was actually grief at having left them behind.[51]The late Llewellyn Barrackman, who was the tribe’s unofficial historian, reported that if Olive had, “we would all know.”[52] He added that the children would have stood out as mixed-race Mohaves who could have been easily traced to her. Furthermore, though she married after her ransom, Olive never had biological children, which raises the possibility that she couldn’t. Finally, a half century after her ransom, when the anthropologist A.L. Kroeber interviewed a Mohave named Musk Melon who had known Olive well, he said nothing about her having been married.[53]Olive had assimilated so well into Mohave culture during the four years that she lived among them that she had nearly forgotten English. But after returning to the east to live with relatives in Albany, New York and attending school, she quickly regained her mother tongue.[54]Stories about white people being captured by Native Americans and enslaved were a popular genre at the time. They tended, however, to have racist overtones and chimed with a widespread belief that Native Americans were barbaric savages. Olive’s story had all the right ingredients, and her tale was all the more gripping because of the tattoos that marked her face.The Reason This Woman From The Wild West Had A Tattoo On Her Face Is Frankly ChillingIn 1857, the Reverend Royal Stratton wrote Olive’s story: Life Among the Indians: Captivity of the Oatman Girls, one of the few published accounts of Indian captivity at that time.[55] It was incredibly successful and sold out three editions in one year, a best-seller. In 1858, the Oatmans moved to New York with Stratton, and Olive went on the lecture circuit to promote his book. Royalties from Stratton’s book paid for the education of Lorenzo and Olive at the University of the Pacific.[56]These appearances were among the few occasions on which she appeared in public without wearing a veil to cover her tattooed face. Olive stated that the Mojave tattooed their captives to ensure they would be recognized if they escaped. “You perceive I have the mark indelibly placed upon my chin,” she said, neglecting to mention that most Mojave women wore chin tattoos.[57] Stratton’s book also claimed that the girls received designs specific to “their own captives.” But the very pattern Olive wore appears on a ceramic figurine of the late 19th-early 20th century that displays traditional Mohave face painting, tattoo, beads and clothingMuch of what actually happened to Olive Oatman during her time with Native Americans remains unknown. In response to rumors to the contrary, Olive denied that she had been married to a Mojave or was ever raped or sexually mistreated by either tribe.[58] In Stratton’s book she declared that “to the honor of these savages let it be said, they never offered the least unchaste abuse to me.”[59]In November 1865, Olive married cattleman John Fairchild.[60] After her marriage, she gave up all of her lecture activities, remaking herself into a proper Victorian lady, complete with a child (the couple adopted) and a beautiful house. Olive did charity work, and like a many a Victorian woman, she apparently suffered from neurasthenia, a malady Olive may have been more susceptible to after her years of freedom, fresh air, and activity with Mohave.[61] They lived in Detroit, Michigan for seven years before moving to Sherman, Texas in 1872, where Fairchild was president of the City Bank. He made his fortune there in banking and real estate. During 1876, they adopted a baby girl named Mary Elizabeth (called Mamie) and moved into a handsome two-story house.[62]Although Olive was a respected member of the Sherman community and Fairchild was one of its most prominent businessmen, she was clearly troubled. Shy and retiring, Olive was interested in the welfare of orphans but rarely discussed her own youth as an orphan and Indian captive. She always kept a jar of hazelnuts, a staple Mojave food, as a reminder of her earlier adventures.[63] She rarely left her home and, when she did, attempted to cover her chin tattoo with veils and face powders.Her time spent with the native tribes marred the rest of Olive Oatman’s life, since she lived, literally as a marked woman. If she had, in fact, been married to a native man or even if she’d engaged in sexual activity with any of them, the pressure to hide it would be serious, now that she was away from the so-called savages and back in conservative Western society, where a woman’s virginity was sacrosanct.[64] Even friendships between white and Native American people were frowned upon, to say nothing of sexual relationships. She already had the social fallout from the face tattoo to deal with, and the pressure of instant celebrity didn’t helpIn her forties, Olive battled debilitating headaches and depression. In 1881, she spent nearly three months at a medical spa (sanitarium) in Canada, largely in bed.[65] Oatman seemed to suffer from some chronic form of post-traumatic stress for most of her later life. Letters found after her death bore evidence to the psychological scars she had suffered in her early years.[66] Often ascribed to mistreatment by the Indians, her emotional problems were just as likely due to the loss of her family members and the bittersweet memories she left behind in the Mohave Valley.Olive Ann Fairchild (Oatman) 1837 - 1903 BillionGraves RecordOlive died in Sherman on March 21, 1903, at the age of sixty-five from a heart attack. John Brant Fairchild died four years later, on April 25, 1907. Both were interred in an elaborate grave Fairchild had prepared in Sherman’s West Hill Cemetery.Footnotes[1] Tattooed women outnumber men in a new poll[2] A Secret History of Women and Tattoo[3] Encyclopedia of Body Adornment[4] Oatman[5] The Tattooed Pioneer Girl[6] Church of Christ (Brewster)[7] Gila Bend and the Oatman Tragedy[8] What Life on the Oregon Trail Was Really Like[9] The Incredible Story of Olive Oatman, The Tattooed Texas Woman[10] Native American Timeline of Events[11] Royce Boise Oatman, Sr.[12] Oatman[13] Olive Oatman, the Pioneer Girl Abducted by Native Americans Who Returned a Marked Woman[14] Gila Bend and the Oatman Tragedy[15] 10 Myths About Olive Oatman | True West Magazine[16] Nature, Culture and History at the Grand Canyon[17] Surviving Conquest[18] Oatman Massacre: The Bones Still Speak[19] The story of the young pioneer girl with the tattooed face[20] Oatman Massacre: The Bones Still Speak[21] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://arizonaexperience.org/remember/charles-poston&ved=2ahUKEwjaiK7mntXiAhUCzlkKHc8YBEcQFjALegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw0sbx36EgMo-Qbn7zJZAiVh&cshid=1559837359285[22] Olive Oatman’s Rescue: A True Indian Captive Story[23] Oatman Massacre: The Bones Still Speak[24] Olive Oatman - Wikipedia[25] Olive Oatman’s Rescue: A True Indian Captive Story[26] Oatman Massacre: The Bones Still Speak[27] The Strange Story of a 19th Century American Settler and The Bizarre Tattoos on Her Face[28] The story of the young pioneer girl with the tattooed face[29] The Extraordinary Story of Olive Oatman[30] The Blue Tattoo | The Mohave Indians | Olive Oatman[31] Olive Oatman[32] Olive Oatman: The Girl With the Mojave Tattoo | JSTOR Daily[33] Hell on Wheels Handbook – Olive Oatman, a Historical Counterpart to Eva[34] Captured: Olive Ann Oatman[35] The High Chaparral Oatman Girls[36] http://McGinty, Brian (2014). The Oatman Massacre: A Tale of Desert Captivity and Survival. University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 0806180242[37] r/HumanPorn - Olive Oatman, a White woman who lived with a Mojave tribe for 5 years after being kidnapped at 14 and traded by a Yavapai tribe. Seen here with traditional Mojave face tattoo [1000 × 1478][38] Olive Oatman, The Mormon Girl Who Was Raised By The Mohave[39] The Reason This Woman From The Wild West Had A Tattoo On Her Face Is Frankly Chilling[40] Amiel Weeks Whipple - Wikipedia[41] http://Brian McGinty. The Oatman Massacre: A Tale of Desert Captivity and Survival. 2004.[42] Heart Gone Wild - True West Magazine[43] Location, Clothes, Food, Lifestyle, History and famous Chiefs***[44] The Abduction of Olive Oatman[45] Olive Oatman's First Account of Her Captivity Among the Mohave[46] Redirect Notice[47] Olive Oatman's First Account of Her Captivity Among the Mohave[48] http://800 Copeland Ave La Crosse, WI 54603[49] The Incredible Story of Olive Oatman, The Tattooed Texas Woman[50] Olive Oatman: More Than the Girl with the Chin Tattoo[51] Remembering Olive Oatman, the Pioneer Girl Who Became a Marked Woman[52] The Rhythmic Journey Home -- Birdsingers Ensured Victory at Ward Valley[53] Captivity of the Oatman Girls[54] Remembering Olive Oatman, the Pioneer Girl Who Became a Marked Woman[55] Myths and Traditions of the Crow Indians[56] Olive Oatman, ca. 1860[57] Olive Oatman, The Mormon Girl Who Was Raised By The Mohave[58] Olive Oatman: More Than the Girl with the Chin Tattoo[59] Myths and Traditions of the Crow Indians[60] FAIRCHILD, OLIVE ANN OATMAN[61] Taking it on the Chin[62] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://medium.com/%40belleoftheplain/olive-oatman-the-mohave-tribe-4ba8c9135abf&ved=0ahUKEwjgqcy_89XiAhUFQ60KHZAsB7YQ2aoCCNEBMBg&usg=AOvVaw0A_nsUpSa7IyH6h89OIr0V[63] Location, Clothes, Food, Lifestyle, History and famous Chiefs***[64] Colonial Women in Indian Captivity: Assumptions About Gender & Race[65] https://www.google.com/amp/s/blogs.ancestry.com/cm/the-girl-with-the-tattooed-face/amp/[66] Oatman family member to speak about historic massacre

I already answered this question in some depth and have cut and pasted below.This question keeps getting renamed and bumped around so many times So I've sort of merged it with another, longer answer on the subject that I wrote over Christmas.There are no real advantage to Brexit or none that really matter anyway. So if you hate the EU with a passion and you don't have time to even consider a different view then don't read on. This is a long answer even by my standards so rather than make it longer by adding in reams of text that present the idea of Brexit as a fresh new beginning for Britain I'll say only this. Leaving the EU would satisfy some mostly irrelevent jingoistic feelings and perhaps please some businessmen who object to certain labour laws. There is money to be made in a deregulated economy.Take a trip to India if you don't believe me.As for the negative consequences, I think that in order to fully appreciate the EU one has to understand the EU. One has to examine its origins and its eventual direction. By doing so we can understand what the EU does for us now, and what it will do for us in the future.The EU is an attempt at nation building; most of the people who oppose it are unaware of where it came from, why it formed or where it’s going. It is a work in progress and as such, pointing to its deficiencies is a little like complaining that a car is not meeting your expectations before anyone has put petrol in the engine. Is it perfect? No, not even close. Is it Europe's future?Hell yes.In order for the EU to federalize it would have to pass many significant hurdles and chief among them would undoubtedly be nationalism. Still, before we address that point let's take a look at what the EU is and how it came to be. You'll have to bear with me though because there's really no quick way to go through this. I'm of the opinion that these things are not easy to understand and yet we have many, many people insisting that they understand what 's going on without having ever looked at the history and philosophy behind the project. If you are the kind of person that likes to know how things tick before you formulate an opinion, then please, read on.Once upon a time, Europe was gripped with a sickness and the beginnings of the EU can be traced back to an attempt to find a cure.The painting above is of the Battle of Fortenoy which took place in 1745. The blue-clad French in the foreground are Gardes Francaises and they are looking upon the British forces commanded by the Duke of Cumberland. This battle took place as part of the War of Austrian Succession and it was something of a victory for France though it came at a high price."See how much blood a triumph costs!" lamented the french King Louis XV. " The blood of our enemies is still the blood of men!"The man had a point. This single battle produced almost 20,000 causalities of which 5,000 were fatalities.That's a lot of death for just one days work.Immanuel Kant.This, thought one of the greatest thinkers of all time, was something of a problem. Kant was born in the 18th century, a particularly violent time to live in. From his perspective the sickness that gripped Europe was one of almost constant warfare and he took some to time off thinking big thoughts to see if there was a pattern he could identify.First he looked to the past.17th Century Warfare :Cost 10,000,000 European lives.In just one year, 1638 there were five separate wars occurring in Europe.There were only 4 years free of warfare in the whole century. The other 96 years all saw conflict of some kind.The total number of separate wars was 42.18th Century Warfare:Cost 20,000,000 European lives. It also dragged many other parts of the world into its conflicts.The total number of separate wars was 43.Kant could not see an end to this violence. In his mind, it was set to increase as time went on; the 19th century he believed would be more violent than the 18th the 20th more violent than the 19th and so on. He had no way of knowing if he was correct; he died in 1804. We however, looking back from the 21st century, can check the numbers.19th Century Warfare:Cost between 45 and 90,000,000 European lives. It also dragged many other parts of the world into its conflicts.The total number of separate wars was 52.20th Century WarfareCost, depending on who you ask,175,000,000 lives ( Zbigniev Brezinski.)225,000,000 lives ( Milton Litenberg)258,000,000 lives ( Rudolph J Rummel)Needless to say, due the the nature of 20th century wars, this loss of life was not restricted to Europe.There were 79 separate European wars in the 20th century,So we can perhaps agree on one thing. Kant was right, things just kept getting worse and something had to be done. You don't have to agree with me that the EU is a solution to any of this of course, just that the European wars were bad and getting worse.Potentially much worse! for we know something that Kant did not, the next major war might look like this.The next 'Big one' might even end our species which would be something of a pity because we're a pretty good species.(Shit)Kant of course, being unimaginably clever decided that since there was a solution to most problems then there must be a solution to this one too and, being an amenable chap, he wrote his conclusions down for us to ignore in favor of listening to Republican quick fixes (which always seem to blame Mexicans for everything that is wrong with the world).In this, one of the most important political texts ever written, Kant produced the cure for the sickness that ailed Europe. He prescribed the following remedies some of which were more evidently sensible than others.No Secret Treaties! Such things make states nervous. By being open with one another you can avoid states jumping to conclusions.Inheritance "No independent states, large or small, shall come under the dominion of another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or donation. So if the King of France dies you can't send a message to the King of England saying ' You now own France as well.' This might sound silly but as we saw at Fortenoy, inheriting a whole country was quite commonplace and caused major upheavals. (we'll get back to why this was so later on.)Limited Military: No standing armies. Controversial I know. But there is a work around for this one.Debt. You could borrow money all right but not as Kant put it ' with a view to the external friction of states.’Sovereignty. "No state shall by force interfere with the constitution or government of another state."War needs Rules! "No state shall, during war, permit such acts of hostility which would make mutual confidence in the subsequent peace impossible: such are the employment of assassins (percussores), poisoners (venefici), breach of capitulation, and incitement to treason (perduellio) in the opposing state."Kant also offered three other points or 'definite articles' that are a little more difficult to fathom.The civil constitution of every state should be republican" (Kings are capricious, Prime Ministers and Presidents less so. The latter are also much easier to replace.)"The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states" Or rather, all states should posses sovereignty but should be bound together in some way."The law of world citizenship shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality" Free travel from one area to another was a good idea as was treating visitors in a fair and open manner.So here we have a fairly definitive plan and we can summarize it as follows.The world should consist of free states that are ruled by elected officials and not kings since kings are assholes; their tendency to believe that they own entire countries by right of birth is also problematic.We should have no or at least very small standing armies. and we should never lend a country so much money that they are bound to default; if we did this we'd be tempted to invade to get our money back.We should never interfere with a nation's sovereignty either by coercing or invading it. People don't like this and they will fight back with whatever weapons they can get their hands on (Iraq, Vichy France, Vietnam etc.)If war does occur then behave yourself. It benefits nobody if people are still seething with hatred for your nation several generations after the war. Civilian massacres and other atrocities will beget more violence and perpetuate war.People should be able to move from place to place. This encourages understanding. Polish immigrants to the UK, once met with hostility are now friends, girlfriends, daughters in law, neighbors and colleagues. And British people have also discovered the delights of chocolate Babka.Federalism is good. (more on that later.) We can make deals with other countries but lets be honest about it.All good stuff!And nobody listened.Because war was, fun! It had its winners and losers. It provided a nice place for the second sons of nobles to work, it allowed us to conquer, plunder and so on and so on. It was in our nature after all. Oh, as time went on some of the things Kant had suggested came to pass, but not in a structured way. We traded kings for Prime Minister's here and there and several, many states in fact, did indeed Federalize.But we still had war. And lots of it at that.Until...WWI had been bad. Let's be absolutely clear about this one point. There were no winners, only losers. Our attempt to denude Germany of any kind of return to power bit everyone involved in their fat arses. The USA got the Great Depression and the other countries of Europe got politics so radical that it made Donald Trump look like a cast member from an early episode of Sesame Street; they either went left as in Russia, right as in Germany or else stayed in the middle and had to fight the extremists.But whilst the UK barely recovered from the economic and social trauma of WWI it never recovered from WWII. All of its vast wealth had been squandered. It won the war but at great cost. It went in to defend Poland but Poland ended up behind the Iron Curtain which wasn't much better than being in Nazi hands.War just wasn't fun anymore, it was bombed cities, death camps, economic ruin and people dead in the tens of millions instead of tens of thousands. Russia won WWII and got a devastated country as a victory present. Britain won WWII and got... nothing... aside from the moral high ground I suppose. Only the USA came out on top and even that was no good because...Remember?That's Big Ivan, better known as Tsar Bomba. It's packing some 57 Megatons of Soviet might. That's 1,400 times Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined and ten times the entire combined fire power expended in WWII. In one bomb! One explosion! And, incredibly, that's only half of what it could have done. yes, had the variable yield been turned to max, it would have exploded with the force of nearly 3000 Hiroshima bombs!(More on this here: In Opinion: Why do liberals tend to favor defense cuts?And for a look at the realities of nuclear was see here: Ian Jackson's answer to Why is Donald Trump telling Americans our nukes don't work?We had to put an end to war. More importantly, from a US perspective we had to put an end to European wars since they were doing all the damage. The USA was and is, locked into a symbiotic relationship with Europe and had been dragged into just about every European war that anyone could think of. It had to stop.But how?Oh yes... Kant.Perhaps, thought our Yankee friends, he'd been on to something after all. And it wasn't like Kant's ideas hadn't been tested before, they had, just not on such a large scale. Which is why we have to go off on another tangent and take a look at...A Short History of GermanyHere's a picture of Germany as it was in 1789, around about the time that Kant was writing Perpetual Peace. You might notice that it looks a bit like a Sydney Pollock painting what with all the splodges of reds, greens and... what is that, mauve? In the 18th century, the Holy Roman Empire consisted of approximately 1,800 territories, the majority being tiny estates owned by the families of knights though some being quite large Duchies or to use their fancy title Palatines.And yet, in less than a century, most, if not all, would be united and Germany as we know it today would be born. This then, was the formation of the EU in miniature.How did this come to pass?Well it began with a confederation. Obviously...This here is the Confederation of the Rhine and it was set up in 1806 by the French Empire under the rule of Napoleon Bonaparte. It lasted exactly 7 years.Now, you might notice that there are far fewer states, than in its direct predecessor, initially, only 9 although it eventually comprised of 28 different states. None of this was to last. At the treaty of Vienna, the Allies, victorious over France at last, put everything back more or less the way it had been.There were now only 39 states and they were joined in a loose confederation. But then, they always had been, so nothing really changed. All that much.That big green country on the right is Prussia and they knew exactly what the German Confederation was for and what it was worth. It acted as a buffer between the powerful states of Austria and Prussia. Britain approved of it because London felt that there was need for a stable, peaceful power in central Europe that could discourage aggressive moves by France or Russia. It was a weak and ineffective confederation and an obstacle to German nationalist aspirations. And it was also up for grabs. Only two states had a chance of securing it. One was Austria and the other was Prussia.If you're wondering who won then let me point out two things. The capital of Austria was and is Vienna and the capital of Prussia was Berlin.It was Prussia then, that figured things out first. If one wanted to unify Germany then one must first attempt to develop economic ties. Such an idea was consistent with Kantian ideas of peace, something that was beginning to develop into a theory of International Relations called Liberalism. This is not related to the Liberalism that Fox news gets so upset about, I apologize on behalf of political scientists everywhere for not having come up with a different name for it.)This union set up in 1834 was called the Zollverein and it was little more than a customs agreement, a way to manage tariffs more efficiently and with greater profit.It was no master plan to bring Germany together.And yet it brought German states together regardless. With fewer tariffs came greater opportunities. It makes far less sense to start a war with a neighbor who is happily buying all your Hessian underthings, or your coal or building ships of commerce for you, or whatever. It was all one big happy family or rather one big happy commonwealth, a system wherein the aggregate wealth of member states is greater than the sum of its parts thanks to high levels of co-operation and low levels of friction.Austria, poor Austria was excluded from all this thanks to the machinations and political maneuvering of Prussia. It suffered accordingly, in fact, it went into an almost terminal decline. By 1870 the writing was on the cards. It took a war, the Franco-Prussian War to be precise, to really cement the deal but in 1871 a new country was born. Germany.Ah-ha! said the Americans! From economic co-operation to political union. What better way to stop Europeans fighting? I mean, Bavarians weren't fighting Prussians and we saw similar results with other unification. England joined with Scotland in 1801 putting an end to 100's of years of war. Italy had done something similar.The United States, then -- unlike now -- run by brilliant people, came up with several salient points.1) We must rebuild Europe. We are a country that makes stuff and we need to be able to sell this stuff to Europeans. As an added bonus, a rebuilt Europe will be less likely to turn to the radical politics of communism. Even better, money we give them will give democracies a head start, making capitalism look like a much better system.2) We need to make sure that we do this only once because it's expensive so now is a good time to make a few demands.The Marshall plan comprised of $13 billion (approximately $130 billion in current dollar value as of August 2015) in economic support to help rebuild Western European economies after the end of WWII The plan was in operation for four years beginning in April 1947. The goals of the United States were to rebuild war-devastated regions, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, make Europe prosperous again, and prevent the spread of communism.So they could sell us stuff.Communist states were welcome to the money but Stalin refused to let them take it.It was a good plan and it came with a little caveat.You had to join the OECD which was OK because both the Americans and many of the European leaders felt that European integration was necessary to secure the peace and prosperity of Europe. Although in some ways this effort failed, in a very real sense the EU we see today was the brainchild of American thought guided by Kant's genius.Because, although the OECD was flawed, the idea was not. The separate European Coal and Steel board that excluded Britain was a run away success and offered a tantalizing possibility. A European commonwealth!A United States of Europe? Wow. How would that work? Well, let's take a look at the USA.Its economy is worth about 18 trillion dollars.The best median income you can find in an American state is to be found in Maryland which in 2014 reached $70,004. Well done Marlyanders!The worst Median income you can find is in the State of Mississippi at $36,919.That's not so great really but we can add in some caveats to this analysis.1) The first 25 states all make it over the $50,000 mark aside from number 24, Iowa that manages a median income of $49,427 and number 25 Texas at $49,392.2) Only the three poorest states dip below $40,000 as a median. Arkansas, West Virginia and the aforementioned Mississippi.And let's be honest. The USA economy has been heavily screwed in favor of the super rich. and is in desperate need of an overhaul. See Ian Jackson's answer to U.S presidential primary candidate Bernie Sanders says "It is profoundly wrong that the top 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95%" Why is that wrong? Is everyone entitled to the same amount of wealth?But for now, let's compare that to Europe.The richest country in Europe per capita is Luxembourg at around $ 111,716 per annum. Norway is surrounded by bountiful oil and gas reserves and happily for the Norwegians, there aren't that many of them. So they cap out at $97,013. The poorest country that we have statistics for is Moldova.They manage $2,222.I know.Holy-Fuck!What is with this massive income disparity and why should we care?Well I should start by saying that you should care just based on the principle that being poor sucks and we should do what we can to help those who have nothing. But since I'm something of a realist I realize that a lot of people might take an attitude not dissimilar to the following."I don't know where Moldova is, I don't care about Moldova. We have have plenty of needy people here to take care of before we start worrying about some people in a far off land of whom we know little."That last bit incidentally is from British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who used this argument to explain why he had no intention of stopping Hitler from invading Czechoslovakia.Dick-move Neville.I digress.The 'Clean up out own neighborhood first’ argument is very often promulgated and stems from natural human selfishness on the one hand and common-garden ignorance on the other.But OK, that's easy to say, but harder to answer so, why should we care?Well, let's imagine that you want to sell your house.Let's say you inherited the house from a relative and that she bought the House for $200,000. The house is situated in a town miles from anywhere that has no major industry to speak of. We'll call this town Slumsville.Nobody in Slumsville has a job and most of them have taken to living in flimsy cardboard boxes. There are loads of townspeople who want to buy your house, there's definitely a market for it, but no-one can afford it and you can't easily move into the house yourself because you work elsewhere. So you quit your job and start your own business selling, of all things, bespoke kitchens. Nobody in the town has a job so they are willing to work for peanuts and as property prices are low you manage to set up your businesses on the cheap. Nice!Of course, nobody in Slumsville can afford to buy your kitchens but you happen to know that just over the hill there's another town called Snootsville. The people who live there wouldn't be caught dead in an Ikea; they don't know what bespoke means but they absolutely love to buy really expensive stuff.The orders come flying in and you load up your trucks.Oh.That's right, you forgot. Slumsville has no roads. Because they have no money and why in the hell would Snootsville pay for their roads? To make things worse, the dirt tracks are prone to banditry. You lose half your cargo. When it gets to the city limits corrupt officials constantly come up with creative new tariffs, bribes and add on expenditures. Not that we can blame them, they are living in flimsy cardboard boxes after all. By the time you have figured all this into the eventual price of the kitchen its too much even for the residents of Snootsville, You go bankrupt and move into a cardboard box of your own.Herein lies the basic problem to which a commonwealth is a natural solution. This is one of the main reasons why the USA was so successful for so long.The idea is simple, which is why it is so frustrating when people get it so wrong.Let's imagine you are the CEO of Mercedes Benz taking a look at the figures for the year.Looking over the USA you feel satisfied. You sell more cars in Maryland than Mississippi for sure but you at least sell some cars in the poorest state. You transport cars across roads that stretch from the very poorest states to the very richest. There is internet all over, freight trains and other infrastructure are available in all 50 states too. Some places are better developed than others that's for sure but there's no point where you just simply run out of road. Every part of the USA is connected to every other part. The workforce is reasonably well educated wherever you go too so if you need to be close to a natural resource then you can build a plant and fill it with workers. There are absolutely no trade barriers between states whatsoever and no hard borders either, so fewer delays are to be expected. If a natural disaster washes away a road or train line then the pooled sovereignty of the Federal State will step in and fix it. As a result, you create more wealth. You sell more cars, which means you hire more workers. Mechanics specializing in the Mercedes brand spring up all around the country and are able to make an honest buck. They spend their money in cafe's and buy groceries. It's a little thing perhaps, but it all builds up. An extra vacation sold here, a few more presents bought at Xmas there. Bums on seats in cinemas, restaurants and furniture stores!And there is a further advantage. Trading as a block, US merchants get better deals. We all know that buying and selling in bulk confers advantages. This was the whole point of the European Coal and Steel Board. The rich states in America subsidize the poor. They build roads from A-B because they want to buy stuff at A and sell stuff at B. They redistribute wealth in sensible ways and when Apple releases a new iPhone it's national ubiquity is guaranteed.This is a Moldovan phoneThey are made to order by a man called Sergei who insists that they only explode with the force of a grenade when allowed to 'Overheat.'You then look at Europe.You have sold plenty of cars in Germany Italy, Norway and France but that's about it. You sold one in Moldova, possibly to the President himself. If you want to sell to Russia then be prepared for a wait. Taxes need to be paid and you have to unload your cars at the border since they use different sized rails in Russia. You are beset with difficulties and cannot expand your market. Granted, yours is a luxury product but even basic necessities are difficult to export. Growth is stunted everywhere you look.This was what the Europeans saw and what they wanted was something more akin to the USA's success story than to the fractious bickering states of the past. They wanted a single market, one that was close by and one that could afford to buy and sell on a more or less equal basis. Germany the UK and France could be Maryland and Moldova could be Mississippi.What if they asked each other, we were able to pool sovereignty like the USA? Would it not be better if all the countries of Europe were hovering round the $70,000 median income mark? The idea that we could make it as easy to sell a car in Moldova as it was in France. That was.. well irresistible.The EEC was created at the treaty of Rome in 1957 and it looked like thisIt was SUCH a good idea that others soon joined in and at the treaty of Maastricht in 1992 became the EU. The rich countries would get richer, the poor would get richer, everyone would be happy. And good news, the EU is now the largest economy in the world trumping both China and the United States.So it worked.Of course the EU has become much more than a simple economic institution. Since 1992 there have been moves, moves that have disturbed many, to turn into something very similar to the USA a Federal Europe in all but name.And I'm afraid the reason why so many have become seduced by this idea requires another lengthy explanation which I do apologize for but like I said these are complex issues.Why Federalize?The world has changed a lot since 1992. Some of it we could predict but much of it we could not. The USA was busily congratulating itself upon it's Cold War 'Victory' and nations like the UK were trying to come to terms with the idea that they no longer faced annihilation in the next World War. We began to prepare for the new world, we set up the IMF, the World Bank, redefined the role of NATO created institutions such as the G8 and so on. But no matter what we did, there was always something looming on the horizon.The Yellow Peril!No. I've not gone all racist, this was the name of the picture above and it was a warning of the threat Asia posed to European hegemony, possibly even its fundamental prosperity. The term Yellow Peril was coined by German Emperor Wilhelm II in 1895, but the theory that Asian peoples represented a menace to the West originated in the late nineteenth century. Of course, back then a little bit of luck and daring-do could forge the destiny of nations. Those days have gone, the threat of China has not.Let's take a quick look at the world.There we go. Now, forget everything you know about the world, in fact imagine you're an alien trying to to figure out where power might be concentrated.1) Africa is the obvious choice. It's central, and it's large."But," say's the human (who has been captured for interrogation purposes and at the threat of a sideways butt-probe has decided to spill the beans,) "Africa is weak. It lacks navigable rivers, it's prone to drought, it has lower population density than most places and suffers from tribalism."2) OK thinks the Alien. Then what about these two patches of paradise, Canada and Russia. They are both huge."Well," says the human, "They are that, but in truth much of their land is a bit too cold for us humans. It's mostly tundra. These places are rich and powerful but they don't top the lists."3) The Alien is now getting frustrated because he looks like a bit of an idiot. He dismisses Australia as being too far away from everywhere else and Antarctica is obviously even more frozen than Canada. He decides power must be distributed across many countries so he lists them.a) The USA, large and protected by two oceans.b) Russia because he figures that it must have great natural resources.c) Brazil for it's size.d) India, large and in an excellent position to trade with the world.e) China even larger and also in an excellent position to trade with the rest of the world."Now you're cooking," says the human before pleading for the removal of the probe.We should note two things from this observation.1) The Alien has successfully identified the BRIC countries. Kudos. BRIC Countries - Background, Facts, News and Original Articles2) He didn't give Europe a second thought. It's small and it is fractious and its just so damnnorthern.In fact, if you told the alien that the largest empire that the world has ever known was ruled over by the British. He'd be at a loss as to how this happened. As he should be.(If you want to know why Europe was able to dominate the world for 500 years or so then check out this Macat Analysis , not one that I personally wrote but it's very good stuff. There's also a video below.)European dominance was an accident of history. It was never supposed to be in charge. The obvious choice is and always has been China and India. And as the 21st century loomed the accident of history ground to a halt. The 20th century had belonged to the the USA, but the 21st was China's.And here we are today;The modern world is made up of competing blocks of powers. You have a choice. You can be in one of those blocks or you can be marginalized by one.I'll give you an example.The Chinese economy is currently around three times the size of the UK's using nominal GDP figures. At that rate things are OK. We can get trade concessions, the Chinese pick up the phone when the PM calls and so on and so forth. Dealing with an economy three or four times larger than are own is not so bad, we've been doing it with the US for a while.You can study international relations all you like but when it comes down to it. Money is power.However.1. The USA are our cultural and ideological allies and to be honest, that really does help grease the wheels. Our relationship with China is less clear cut, we don't share the same values and our interests coincide less often.2. The Chinese economy in 2050 will be more like 10 times that of the UK. This is a massive shift in ratios and ratios are important. Imagine trying to fight off three guys. You'll probably lose but you might give a good account. Now imagine fighting ten guys at once.... Unless you are Batman.. and the UK is not Batman (the USA is Batman, the UK is more like Ace, the Bat-Hound,) you're going to go down hard.3. The ten to one ration would give us the same negotiating powers as Moldova currently enjoys with the rest of the world.4. We are blessed in this country with being one of the richest countries in the world. Our life style, our standard of living... it's not really based on how much we have so much as how much we have relative to the rest of the world. We're 5th by nominal GDP today, 7th or 8th by PPP. By 2050 We'll be around 12th or 13th and France and Germany will not be doing much better. You might think that these league tables matter little. You'd be wrong to think so. Expect a lowering of living standards if the UK goes it alone.OR...5. What if instead of being kicked out of the top ten we could somehow POOL resources? How does the EU economy look in 2050? Well, it will be the largest economy in the world for a start, in fact it already is. The UK would be senior partner in the largest economy in the world. Bigger than the USA, bigger than China. Yes, the German economy would be dominat. And yes, France would be just a little bit behind. But still, The UK's voice would be loud, progressive and strong. It's GOOD to be on top. The USA at its peak had the highest standards of living the world had EVER seen. That's what we can build, even exceed in Europe of we can get over our ethnocentric ways.6. Germany and France can stay on top simply by pooling sovereignty themselves. And I'm telling you, they'd do so, even if the EU collapsed. In 2050 a Franco German state would have an economy that was around 3 or 4 times the size of China's. Again, they could cope. The UK would have to survive by becoming either a tax haven (bad idea, look what happened to Ireland,) or a sweatshop modeled on Indian standards.7. The reason for the last point is why so many rich white businessmen want out of Europe. Minimum wage? Maternity Leave? Working directives that put caps on hours worked? All EU legislation, and all scrapped, bit by bit by UKIP/ Tory governments if we leave the EU.In short. You could live in a small European country that is sour, poor and generally unpleasant, unless you yourself are exceedingly rich. Or you could live in the greatest, wealthiest political union the world had ever seen.So the EU project shifted to reflect the new geopolitical reality. Germany, France and the UK liked being rich and they intended to stay rich, by pooling sovereignty they would remain relevant for... well forever.It was a good plan, a wholemeal plan with lots of roughage in it. One snag and one snag alone. People; because people are the worst.What are the things stopping the EU from forming a nation like the US?Like I said, Ignorance, fear and all that Jazz.Look at how long my answer was and I'm being brief here! I can't really see any way that people can truly understand the issues at hand without first understanding its historical, geopolitical and economic underpinnings. It would be like trying to fix a car engine without knowing what oil is.At the same time, I don't expect people to be as interested in these things as I am. This is why we have representative and not direct democracy. Alas, whilst my ignorance of the inner workings of the internal combustion engine leads me to call a mechanic when my car breaks down, far too many people think politics is the one field in the world that it is impossible to have any expertise in. Consequently they fall back on easily countered arguments that support their world view.1) We speak different languages so a Federal Europe will never be like the USA.Bit like this place then. Once four countries with four languages and now one country united in the most successful political and fiscal union of all time.2) It will destroy the individuality of states,There's room for diversity between cities let alone states. The French will still be French, the Greeks will still smash plates at weddings. We'll still have national football teams and TV shows. British weather will still be shit and Spanish weather will still... not be shit. French cheese will be better than German cheese and German sausage will still sell more than Russian sausage. We'll go skiing in Switzerland, sunbathing in Cannes and exploring in Italy. There will be death metal in Finland, folk music in France and whatever the fuck they listen to in Belgium. Europe will look like Europe only richer and with a couple of extra elections to consider every year. The capital, when chosen will be the greatest city the world has ever known.3) I don't want to be ruled by bureaucrats in a far away city!Live in Whitehall do you?Why accept rule from London then? Why have a country at all? Why not form a government based on a simple premise. Pick a spot walk for three miles and then draw a ring based on that radius. Anyone inside gets a vote, and anyone outside can go fuck themselves. Just don't expect outside help if crops fail, if roads need mending, if there are floods, a horde of invading Visigoths or wolves. You want to be on your own then be on your own but don't pretend that your objection to pooled sovereignty is based on geography. You didn't mind us pooling sovereignty with NATO or with the World Bank or the IMF or even the UN for that matter.4) I don't want the UK to become more foreign.You're a racist. No really, you are. There are over a million Brits living in continental Europe. It's Quid Pro Quo and by the way, foreign people are people too.5) I like Britain the way it is.Tough, history doesn't care. It didn't care when the Romans took over or the Anglo Saxons butchered the Celts of even when the Vikings annexed Yorkshire. It didn't care when the Angevin Empire was split and France and England became two separate countries and it didn't care when Sardinia, the Papal states and Piedmont coalesced with some other states to form Italy. You don't get to live in the country of your youth because culture is a vicissitude. There were no curries when my mother was a child , no internet, no twitter, no rock and roll no three ply toilet paper and no TV. Even the concept of an avocado would have been lost on her and had you asked her to dress a salad she would have dutifully stuffed some lettuce in the sleeves of a coat.Britain has been transformed by all of these things with the possible exception of the avocado and in 50 years time it will have been transformed again.Change isn't always bad. and it's only really, truly scary when changed comes neatly wrapped in ignorance. Donald Trump is a great example of this. He’s a massive fan of Brexit. Ask yourself why, or read more about it here. Donald Trump Changes Name To Mr. Brexit -- Nobody Knows Why (Video)Nothing I can think of could be worse than a Donald Trump Victory.For general musings or indeed if you want to contact me/ yell at me or ask for my phone number, you can contact me via twitter.Disclosure: This answer links back to one or more articles I wrote.

VAMPIRES: OCCULT HISTORY UNEARTHED!Strigoi Mort (cadaveribus sanguisugis)The vampire is believed to be one who has devoted himself during his life to the practice of Black Magic, and it is hardly to be supposed that such persons would rest undisturbed, while it is easy to believe that their malevolence had set in action forces which might prove powerful for terror and destruction even when they were in their graves. (The Vampire, His kith and Kin 78)First of all, it would be much more accurate to say that I believe in the possibility of vampires existing. I've never actually seen one so I can't claim to actually know for certain.Since vampires (believe it or not) are a part of the larger categories of the Occult and Christian theology, so for those of you who are sceptics regarding religion or the supernatural in general, here is something that will hopefully challenge that:Strange PhenomenaDamien Cowl's answer to Are there any logical arguments for Christianity or Islam?What are vampires?The word “vampire” did not appear in English until 1734, when it was used in an Anglo-Saxon poem titled “The Vampyre of the Fens”. However the general concept is much, much, much older than you might expect. The best way to describe the vampire of history would be as a cross between a demonic wraith, a zombie or ghoul, and a leech.Many believe that vampires are a local folktale that originated from Romania, but they are wrong. Not only does the vampire legend have absolutely nothing to do with Vlad III (who was beheaded and displayed on a pike), but it is not limited to a single land or culture. Rather belief in hideous bloodsucking corpses that would issue nightly from their graves was (and still is) a worldwide phenomenon.Incorruptible CorpsesZombie, Vampire or Saint?Some monks of Mount Athos believe that there is a cave there with "Latinizers" - monks who had encouraged union with the Pope - whose corpses did not corrupt but are basically turning into demons.John Cuthburt Lawson noted instances when a body believed to have been accursed would not decomposed properly, but would instead remain in a horrifyingly incorrupt state.The Church once recorded cases where the incorruptible body of a person who was excommunicated or died in a state of sin would not completely fall into decomposition, instead demons were said to entrap the soul of the deceased permanently and torment them. An exorcism rite would be performed over the body and immediately it would crumble to dust.I think that there is an unusually huge pile of hidden evidence which could very well suggest the existence of the undead.Just take all the hundreds of different words for vampire throughout nearly every culture for example. Here are but a tiny few:Names: vampire · uampire · vampyr · wampyr · vampír · vepir · upir · upyr · oupire · nosferatu · revenant · shroud eater · strigoi mort · strigun · striya · shtriga · lugat · draugr · nachzehrer · blutsaugar · bluatsauger · blut aussauger · doppelsauger · bruxa · catacano · churel · cihuateteo · nahulai · ekimmu · vourdulâc · wurdalak · hsi-hsue-keui · kozlak · langsuir · motetz dam · necrarch · nelapsi · socouyant · gayal · gierrach · givach · aptrgangr · lich · aswang · manaangal · baital · ghoul… (countless others)In the Introduction of his book The Vampire In Europe (1929), renowned Old Catholic occultist and vampirologist, Montague Summers wrote:In a previous study, The Vampire: His Kith and Kin, it was my endeavor to trace back the dark tradition of the vampire to it's earliest beginnings, until indeed it becomes lost amid the ages of a dateless antiquity, for this remarkable and world-wide belief was very present with primitive man, and is notably significant in the daily customs and practice, both tribal and domestic—more especially in funerary rites and sepulchral houses—of furtherest aboriginal and most savage indigene. Nor owing (as I believe) to the fundamental truth, which however exaggerated in expression of communication.I don't know if you know, but Summers was the man who first translated the Malleus Malificarum into modern English as a part of his study on the witch trials.-THE ORIGIN OF THE VAMPIREDid Vampires Exist in Antiquity?Vampires in the Orient?Ancient LegendsI shall break down the Gates of Hell, I shall smash the column pillars, and cast down the entrances to let the dead rise from the soil and feed upon the living! And the dead shall swarm the living!—The epic of GilgameshThis archaological discovery was uncovered a decade or so after Summers' death, but the vampire motif can be traced back to Mesopotamia, the Cradle of Civilization itself: meet the Edimmu (and other ancient vampirish myths):Vampires In MesopotamiaVampires In Mesopotamia8 of the Undead from Around the WorldWhat you might not know is that the zombie archetype found in modern pop culture borrows much more from vampire myths than African Voodoo. Here are zombie-like creatures in ancient Near Eastern cultures:https://archive.archaeology.org/online/interviews/zombies/There was a time when everybody believed in vampires as a part of Christian theology. But what were vampires? They weren't the kind you typically see today on TV.The 18th century philosopher, Jean Jacques Rosseau, wrote: “If Ever there was in the world a warranted and proven history, it is that of vampires: nothing is lacking, official reports, testimonials of persons of standing, of surgeons, of clergymen, of judges; the judicial evidence is all-embracing.”DISSERTATION's ON VAMPIROLOGYHowever, unfortunately that was a different era. In today's world such reports have to be persistently dug for. The vampire phenomenon has gone from a proven and well-known history to an occult study that few people are aware of.Again Montague Summers writes: “Whether we are justified in supposing that cases of vampirism are less frequent today than in past centuries, I am far from certain. But one thing is plain — not that they do not occur, but that they are carefully hushed up and stifled.”However the information is still there, it's just drowned out by the incessant buzz kill of pop fiction; hammer horror films and sappy teen dramas. I have placed a handful of videos and links at the end of my answer (the videos have to be clicked on twice and may take a few seconds to load after the first click).“Vampires actually exist and are walking the earth today,” says a noted exorcist for The Church of England. “Believe me, vampires are real-I’ve encountered three of them,” declared Reverend Donald Omand of Devon, England, “I am convinced a tiny number of people today are vampires who must drink blood. The three I encountered were in mental hospitals, but I think their problem went much deeper; I believe they were possessed by the Evil One.”Omand was hospitalized after receiving scratches and toothlike gashes in his neck when attempting an exorcism on the patients. He was initially called in for the rite because the staff were so terrified that they didn't know what else to do.Seán Manchester states that in addition to the Undead, vampiric spirits can also possess a living person, causing them to temporarily exhibit mild vampire-like traits, unnatural strength, psychic abilities, and a thirst for blood. This condition is only lapsing.--To answer your question, no. What a vampire is today is the same thing it was in ancient times: a hideously ghoulish and demonic creature that is bound to the place in which it was buried after death.Something horrifying, incomprehensible, and without any shred of human decency. In thrives in the earth beneath the tombstones, surrounded by rotting bodies while it in itself remains intact. Nightly it awakens from the cold grip of death to enter people's homes, cackling dementedly as it strangles them before biting deep into their throats.Men, women, children, and even livestock. None living in the countryside are likely to be spared from the vampire's nocturnal ravages. Only the holy cross or the sound of cockcrow will hinder the monster in it's restless path of sadistic murder.It's clothes are tattered and ancient, it's hair a mess, and it's sharp nails filthy and caked with congealed blood. It's grin is parasitic, a face of pure diabolical evil, it's countenance ghastly and livid, it's eyes cold and lifeless, appearing like rotten grapes with pinpoints gleaming in the dark, it's skin is like old parchment and it's veins darkly swollen, and the creature’s teeth are horrible! Pointed like needles and glistening.John Heinrich Zopfius in his Dissertation on Serbian Vampires, 1733, says: "Vampires issue forth from their graves in the night, attack people sleeping quietly in their beds, suck out all the blood from their bodies and destroy them. They beset men, women and children alike, sparing neither age nor sex. Those who are under the fatal malignity of their influence complain of suffocation and a total deficiency of spirits, after which they soon expire. Some who, when at the point of death, have been asked if they can tell what is causing their decease, reply that such and such persons, lately dead, have risen from the tomb to torment and torture them."Scoffern in his Stray Leaves of Science and Folk Lore writes: "The best definition I can give of a vampire is a living, mischievous and murderous dead body. A living dead body! The words are idle, contradictory, incomprehensible, but so are vampires."George Conrad Horst, a German philosopher and occultist, defines a vampire in his writings as such: "A Vampyr is a dead body which continues to live in the grave, which it leaves, however, by night for the purpose of sucking the blood of the living, whereby it is nourished and preserved in good condition, instead of becoming decomposed like other dead bodies."Montague Summers gives the common description of how vampire's were always said to look:A Vampire is generally described as being exceedingly gaunt and lean with a hideous countenance and eyes wherein are glinting the red fire of perdition. When, however, he has satiated his lust for warm human blood his body becomes horribly puffed and bloated, as though he were some great leech gorged and replete to bursting.(The Vampire, His Kith and Kin 179)... and the nails are always curved and crooked, often well nigh the length of a bird's claw, the quicks dirty and foul.Here is an example of what “horribly puffed” would look like: Incredibly Accurate Simulation of DecompositionAdditionally the hands were always curled into claws, with long bony fingers, webbed, thick corded veins and blackened talons.And the jaws are said to be able to stretch inhumanly wide:- -When the stake has pierced the Vampire he will utter the most terrible shrieks and blood will jet forth in every direction from his convulsed and writhing limbs as he impotently thrashes the air with his quivering hands. There is a tradition that when he has been dead for many years and his mysterious life in death is thus ended the corpse has been known immediately to crumble into dust.(The Vampire, His Kith and Kin 205)[Footage of the vanquished Highgate Vampire as it rapidly decomposed]They are not the people they once were in life, in fact they aren't people at all. Real vampires have more in common with zombies, wraiths, and demons as opposed to the modern concept of a vampire. There is no vampire virus either, the phenomenon that causes the corpses of the damned and departed to rise nightly from their graves in order to mercilessly taunt, torment, and prey upon the living can't be anything other than purely demonic.There is no science to it whatsoever, you can't put vampire DNA in a test tube and find anything other than perhaps tissue that is exanimate yet in a bafflingly incorrupt and well preserved state.Today's movies and teen dramas cannot be relied upon…if you want to know about real vampires you need to research the folklore and historical cases of real life vampire attacks. There are thousands of them you just have to know where to look. I also highly suggest reading books written by Montague Summers, such as The Vampire: His Kith and Kin and The Vampire In Europe.To truly understand the living dead, we must take a close look at demonic entities, their connection to blood siphoning, necromancy, and corpse raising.What are demons? The word demon comes from the Ancient Greek δαίμων (daímōn) which referred to a sort of household familiar spirit.The word is used in the Greek Septugiant (for which King James used a Middle English equivalent which was devil) to translate the Hebrew word Shedim (Hebrew: שֵׁדִים‎) which are evil spirits, often identified as the disembodied souls of the Nephilim who died during the flood—having no place in the afterlife due to their incompatible hybrid biology.Demonic encounters:Demonic hauntings are a very real phenomenon. In fact, such occurrences are not all too uncommon, though possession is a bit rare. At times demonic entities will manifest right in front of you.They usually appear like blurry, dark, and transparent humanoid shapes, barely visible. In which case you'll probably hear it speaking to you. The way their voices travel are really creepy. Like smooth static traveling on the wind, or whispering snakes. Their laughs are horribly cruel and sadistic. Yet when they speak it's unmistakable (though sometimes it's difficult to catch everything they are saying because of the different frequency) and when you hear it your body reacts in the way it does when a bee or wasp buzzes in your ear, or when a large truck drives right past you, inches from your face.Angelic and demonic beings are really just extradimensional beings. There's nothing nonsensical or made-up about it. Scientists are even studying the possibility.Are Creatures Living Among Us in Parallel Dimensions?Interdimensional beings, Aliens From "Dimensions" That Coexist Alongside Our Own? | Ancient CodeExtraterrestrial and Extradimensional Beings — How They Travel Space and TimeThe Fourth Dimension and The BibleDamien Cowl's answer to Are there any logical arguments for Christianity or Islam?Gateway of the GodsFamiliar spirits:Familiars are often believed to be demons in disguise. According to medieval lore witches were often aided by familiars, which would often take the form of an animal, commonly a cat, toad, goat, dog and most notably (in the case of vampires) the screetch owl, also known as the barn owl.Bats never became associated with vampires until Bram Stoker wrote Dracula. Their iconic animal was always the screech owl, associated with Lilith and often demons in general.[More about familiars: Familiar | demon]Although just like familiars, vampires have often been said to be able to shapeshift into any animal, and even into fog or mist.Another connection is that a witches' familiar spirit was said to be sustained by blood:The witches' teat was a raised bump somewhere on a witch's body. It is often depicted as having a wart-like appearance…The witches' teat is associated with the feeding of witches' imps or familiars; the witch's familiar supposedly aided the witch in her magic in exchange for nourishment (blood) from sacrificial animals or from the witch's teat.The Bible talks an awful lot about sorcerers and idolaters sacrificing the blood of their sons and daughters to demons. I think there is much to suggest that feeding off blood isn't a vampire thing so much as a demon thing.Demons and Blood are a combination that produce a very powerful demonThey Poured Out Innocent BloodSelf-harm, Cutting and DemonsIn the Bible God urgently warns against leaving blood out in the open, advising that the Israelites cover it with earth:Leviticus 17:13—And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.There are also a number of other passages in the Bible which speak about the practice of covering blood with earth.This is also found in several different cultures. The Banti people believed that a warlock or an evil spirit could use blood that has been left out to fuel dark magic or make a person sick. Any bandage or article of cloth that had even a speck of blood on it would be frantically burned after use.Proclaimed exorcist and Vampirologist Seán Manchester once wrote that “the smallest drop of blood can be employed by a demonic entity, enabling the wraith to form in a tangible manner.”The belief that demons or evil spirits could possess or raise the dead in order to harm the living was also commonplace, believe it or not:Devilish Machinations & the UndeadIt is evident that demonic spirits gain power from blood, and enjoy seeing it shed. Those under their influence often have a compulsion to cut themselves, despite having no signs or history of depression.Under certain circumstances, not yet fully understood, a demon or even a gaggle of demons may gain enough power to hijack a dead body that has been recently deceased. This may only be possible if the deceased person died in a spiritually fallen state and typically has to be buried in unhallowed ground.Sometimes this could be a churchyard that is believed to be hallowed ground but something caused it to become tarnished which the clergy is unaware of. However more often than not vampires are found either in cemeteries that are in a state of disrepair or on ground that is not sanctified.Charnel houses, plague pits, crossroads, abandoned castles, abandoned asylums, abandoned morgues, necropolises, gothic ruins, old battlefields, unmarked graves in the middle of the woods, popular suicide destinations, the bottoms of lakes, rivers, or wells are all common places to find a vampire lurking dormant during the wee hours of daylight.If the deceased is surrounded by Satanic or dark ocultic activity—either having practiced it in life or if such activity had been performed near the premises of the burial by a cult—then this sort of incredibly rare manifestation will become more likely.This results in the creation of a strigoi (cadaveribus sanguisugis), from which the vampire myth and every other undead legend stems from. Such a being is the carnal embodiment of corruption and filth, a hideous, abhorrent, and predatory demon infested corpse, animated through a form of pupetry. It also retains the ability to change form and gains zombie and wraith-like qualities not seen in an ordinary possession.The word strigoi itself comes from the Latin strix, which is a type of giant demon owl in Roman mythology. It also comes from the Romanian word shtriga which is a word for witch. Just like demons, the vampire's spirit animal is the owl—and not any kind of bat.Because of it's dark interdimensional qualities it manifests outside of the boundaries of earthly time, thus ceasing to reflect light at normal speed, thereby not showing in any mirror-like surface nor appearing on digital film.It's appearance is like that of a three to four day old corpse. It also gives off a moldy charnel-like smell which, coulped with it's eerily gleaming hypnotic eyes and psychic oppression, renders most of it's prey all but helpless.They are extremely vulnerable to Christian symbols and artifacts and are rendered completely dormant (exanimate) during most of the day, and for the entire 24-hour duration of each Saturday. They can't cross running water—save at the ebb of tide—and the whole invitation thing works differently than it does in the movies. Anything that welcomes negativity has the potential to allow them to craw right through the bedroom window.The same invitation rule seems to apply to demonic entities in general. Things that allow negative energy increases the chances of them being able to manifest.In addition to gaining sustanence from vital essence (abundant in blood), they also feed off from fear and other emotions and will get inside their victim's head the same way ordinary demons do.Signs of Vampiric Infestation:Those who fall victim to a strigoi always bear the exact symptoms of demonic oppression: insomnia, seeing ghostly or shadowy figures, hearing scratching sounds and cackling, poltergeist activity, paranoia, sleep paralysis, etc…However added to these are the following: anaemia/bloodloss, faint toothlike lacerations on the collarbone, chest, wrist, or thigh, sightings of a stranger or deceased loved one—often with a ghoulish or corpselike appearance, fierce ghastly eyes, and terrifying facial expressions—, tapping or banging on doors and windows, suppressed signs of an extraordinarily stealthy intruder, lack of any DNA evidence, firmly locked windows mysteriously open without any sign of being forced open, disturbing sounds such as low hissing, zombie-like moans, rapid joint crackling, clothes and hair rustling (despite little or no wind), a horribly gutteral wet gurgling sound made deep in the throat of some animal, splotches of fresh blood on the sheets and pillows of the afflicted, and multiple finger width holes in the suspected gravesite that can be traced very far down into the earth.A flat out terrifying creepypasta about vampires…-VAMPIRE FOLKLORE:----REAL WORLD CASES OF VAMPIRE OUTBREAKS:5 Darkest Cases of Real Vampires:-BBC Interview With Seán Manchester:-The Highgate Vampire:-Interview With A Real Vampire Hunter:-What Is A Vampirologist?:-5 Darkest Encounters With Real Vampires:-Montague Summers:-Vampires In Modern Romania:-Refuting Objections To The Possible Existence of VampiresIn his nonfiction novel The Highgate Vampire pg. 38 Seán Manchester writes (“*” marks footnotes added by me, images added for emphasis):Though many attempts have been made and will continue to be made, to explain away the undead, by far the favourite piece of rationalisation on the part of non-believers is the “premature burial” theory. It suggests that in the case of exhumation where vampirism has been suspected, the discovery of a fresh and blood-stained body only indicates that it was buried alive. A person suffering from catalepsy or in an advanced stage of coma which exhibits signs of death would, it is supposed, recover inside the coffin and frantically tear at the lid's interior, cutting their hands in the process – hence the blood. This would also explain the fearful expression on the face of the exhumed corpse.A good and logical theory which slams the door on the possibility of a supernatural answer, until, that is, we examine it more closely. Then the door slowly creaks open again.Someone in a cataleptic trance or deep coma still needs some air and the amount trapped in a coffin when interred is very limited *¹. That there might be enough air to allow such a person to regain conciousness and put up such a fierce struggle that they bleed badly*² is highly doubtful. In the case of premature burials, of which there has been a considerable number in past centuries*³, the eventual death of the unfortunate person would only be delayed by a matter of hours.Safety coffin - WikipediaYet the vampire is when exhumed after months, years, or even centuries*⁴, will show little trace of decomposition but will appear as if in profound sleep.It has also been suggested that an artificially preserved body if disinterred could easily be mistaken for a vampire. But when a true vampire is exhumed it will be found to be remarkably undecomposed and of clear complexion, betraying a trickle of blood at the corners of it's mouth*⁵.Moreover, when the stake pierces the heart, fresh blood will jet and spurt forth in all directions*⁶ as the quivering, writhing, body shudders to a halt*⁷. An embalmed corpse cannot possibly betray bloodstains.Another point that such scientific explanations as these overlook is that when a vampire is exorcised it will emit a blood-curdling shriek and, where many years have elapsed, it will immediately turn to dust due to it's true age*⁸To begin to understand the vampire at all, one must first relate in terms of the impossible becomes possible: a world where there is life in death. If the condition known as undead can be fully grasped, then we may then begin to unlock some of the mysteries of the vampire. One thing is certain, if we think of this paranormal phenomenon as haunting only past centuries we deceive ourselves.Vampires have the ability to remain undead indefinitely if not dealt with in precise manner. We, on the other hand, age by the moment, the previous moment forever gone. And, like all living things, we die. This is not the case however, with the undead. They exist outside the confines of earthly time*⁹; therefore when discovered after centuries, a vampire might appear to have been dead for three score years at most—possibly much younger. It is a question of what earthly age he or she passed into the undead state. Time will do nothing thereafter to efface it's condition at that moment.We are familiar with three dimensions and the sequence of before, now, and after. This restricts us enormously when trying to comprehend the world of the undead. Our earthly bodies move in time. The vampire's does not, but is trapped in a twilight hell between life and death. From this there is but one release and it will be the blessed hand that strikes the blow to set free te tormented soul.The belief in vampires presupposes a belief in the existence of God, and of course, the devil: the vampire being manifest through demonic power. Some might subscribe to this predatory wraith as as a concentration of negative energy, but for those of the Judeo-Christian tradition it is an agent of Satan.It should be remembered that the link between our world and that of the undead is found in Satanism and the black arts. Those devotees sufficiently wicked to merit the devil's partiality are thought to continue their evil ambitions and selfish passions beyond the grave as satanic emissaries. It is hardly surprising that such person's do not rest undisturbed in their graves after setting into motion such a malevolent force.FootnotesVampires possess facultatively anaerobic resuscitation, ie. they don't need to breathe.Plus cases of vampirism epidemics report that the coffins were squelching with very large amounts of fresh vermillion blood while the corpse itself was completely unharmed.In the 18th and 19th centuries cases of vampire outbreaks went wild. By that time most cemeteries had saftey coffins installed. If a person was buried prematurely all they had to do is ring th bell and and the entire town would come to dig them out. 3.a It is also important to note that many corpses were interred above ground in mausoleums. Why not just lift the damn lid?Even more interesting is the fact that the provocation for the corpse being dug up in the first place were sightings of said individual—ghastly in appearance—wandering around at night, in some cases even conversing with and ferally attacking innocent bystanders on the very streets, in some cases among crowds. A string of mysterious and unexplained deaths always followed.Or rather smeared (as though an attempt was made to wipe it or perhaps the mouth being pressed against the victim's wound) and also trickling at the same time.The only way this could happen would be if the blood was still pumping, if not heart circulation, then contractions of the skeletal muscles could be a possibility.Another explaination is that gas buildup in the body will cause it to shift and make gasping sounds when plunged with stake, making it appear to be alive. However I very highly doubt that “shift” means throes of death, and I also doubt that “gasping” refers to animalistic shrieks and hellish moans.When the demonic force is dispelled the corporeal shell will revert back to it's naturally decomposed state, the stage of which is dependent on the immediate environmental conditions of the moment, and how much time has elapsed while undead. 8.a Once has returned to earthly time, only then will will it cast a shadow, throw reflections, or indeed appear on film.…that nether region, the primordial plane of existence known as the demonic dimension. A place where time as we know it does not exist, rather what can be described as anti-time. The corporeal form is part reanimated ghoul and part demonic wraith.Further Reading:Vampires in ancient Jewish texts: What were they doing there?https://boredomtherapy.com/real-life-vampires/Dealing with the Undead: 5 Supposed Vampire Graves from Around the WorldExploring the Highgate Vampire CaseVampires: Fact, Fiction and FolkloreVampires: The Creatures of the Night - A Slideshow Presentation by Martin V. Riccardo - Dark ChicagoDamien Cowl's answer to What is the biology of a vampire?Vampires, Werewolves & the Metaphysics of LycanthropyEating Your Burial ShroudBeginningsCREATION OF THE VAMPIREHOW TO RECOGNIZE AND DESTROY THE VAMPIREAn illustration of a vampire epidemic.PLEASE ALSO FEEL FREE TO CHECK OUT THE COMMENTS SECTION: