Governments, whether enlightened or not, generally provide justification
for their rule. Despotic regimes don t really need beyond justifications &
# 8217 We're in charge, obey or & # 8220;. However, in practice, even
tyrants go through the motions. A & # 8217 People, Democratic Republic
might not be quite a bastion of freedom, but you'll talk a good game of it.
The concept of self-government has its uses, even reduced to a myth.
In ancient times, the leaders (kings, nobles and priests) led society.
Warriors were below them, the realization of the nation's primary
functions: to protect the people and maintain public order. Producers
(everyone) form the third class. Plato wrote the book on this tripartite
structure down. Modern scholarship has noted that this was universal in the
Indo-European societies. India has developed more.
The concept of legitimacy argues that a regime has the moral authority,
while discouraging the promotion of obedience and betrayals. The ruling
class must believe the king deserves the job. The Warriors must obey His
Majesty's officers plump without flinching, not consider a change in diet.
Producers must remain motivated to continue working, obeying the law and
paying taxes.
Despite this cynical perspective, working the tripartite agreement. It is
basically how all countries operate. The degree of freedom & # 8212; the
libertarian ideal in an Orwellian dictatorship & # 8212; it all depends on
how it's implemented. No alternatives exist other than utopian schemes as
half-baked anarchy.
Legitimacy in history
Among the cavemen, the hunter most likely called the shots. Thrasymachus in
Plato's Republic advocated that the severe pragmatism. When tribal
societies emerged, the chief was hereditary work.
During the dawn of civilization, nations emerged. Agriculture has started
to provide a relatively stable food supply for the masses. People
understood how to bake the clay bricks and stacking. City-states in Egypt
in the kingdoms merged North and South, and there are about five thousand
years, they united under one Pharaoh. Around the same time, Mesopotamia and
China came on the world stage. Other nations have arisen over the
centuries, all ruled by monarchs who amassed great wealth and power.
This was particularly problematic. Imagine a political speaking peasant
villagers & # 8217 We, the land re farmers living in mud huts. Meanwhile,
the king saw this huge palace with gold furniture. It has dozens of women,
concubines and slaves boys. It makes lousy decisions and tax our cloths
off. This incompetent weakling hasn t worked a day in her life, and his
sycophants are no different. Really, what makes this so special douchebag &
# 8221 ?;
The ruling class needed to give the public a compelling reason to kiss
their asses. Sometimes obey or isn t enough.
Divine right
Initially, some leaders are set up as deities. It wasn t discouraged by the
priestly class who also mounted the aristocratic gravy train. It didn t
mean the monarch could pull some cool stuff like walking on water or
levitating. However, what mattered was the public at least pay lip service
to the concept.
The Egyptians had to return very seriously in the day. The Romans knew the
imperial cult was baloney, but still had to go through the motions, a major
sore point in the monotheistic Judea. During pagan times, the Anglo-Saxon
kings sometimes their lineage to divine ancestors traced. After all, who
dares challenge Woden great grandkid of?
During the Christian era, these things didn t fly over. Thus, the story
changed: the kings ruled by God's will. To obey the King & # 8212; even if
it were royal asshat & # 8212; was to obey God, and the rebellion was a
sin. The Catholic Church has certainly encouraged this message, and also
has an important political power. To symbolize the divine sanction, bishops
and sometimes chaired coronations Popes (though Napoleon spoiled the
party). Biblical references as follows promoted the concept:
He changes times and seasons: he moves kings, and he raises kings: he gives
wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding:
& # 8212; Daniel 2:21
This leads to a conundrum. This concept of the divine destiny means that
God put cakes as Ivan the Terrible, Idi Amin, Kim Jong Un, and Justin
Trudeau in office. Couldn t God choose better leaders? In contrast, the
Chinese concept of the Mandate of Heaven, of divine approval is subject to
the leaders who act responsibly.
Thus, throughout this period, the legitimacy meant that the king would be
the eldest son of the previous king. How the dynasty's first king to get
support? Usually he was chief as last clan took over the place. S say what
God the will sounds much better.
popular sovereignty
radical extremist militant 1776
Age of Enlightenment philosophers came up with several new ideas such as
limited government, separation of powers, human rights, and people power.
Democracy sometimes existed in ancient Greece and Rome, but otherwise was
largely unknown for centuries. Under this standard, the legitimate
government means that people are in charge.
The first US success has shown that representative government could work.
The electorate now chosen their leaders, directly or indirectly. Religion
(the priesthood update) was still a powerful force in the moral domain, but
lacked political control. Meanwhile, the government has stayed out of their
hair. Following this proof of concept, possibly kings were stripped or
reduced to figureheads. In the mid-20th century, the monarchy was failed,
the only major exception of Saudi Arabia.
Those who prefer throne and altar traditionalism consider the Enlightenment
a big mistake when everything started to go to hell. True, the monarchy had
positive attributes, and made sense when commoners were mostly illiterate.
At that time, were the lords of lords and peasants were peasants, but
nobody has been a marked atomized consumers with a social security number
and damn spied nine ways to Sunday.
Yet we needn t throw the baby out with the bath water. If done correctly,
representative democracy has obvious advantages. People are investing in
their government. Bad politicians can be voted. regime change it without
any hassle, at least theoretically.
ideological government
During the 20th century, communism and fascism have emerged as key players.
In a way, these are the achievements of Plato's philosopher king concept.
In communism, legitimacy means the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. (The
Party defines itself as the people's will, naturally.) Fascism is
essentially populism on steroids, with the nation's interests first. Both
had large government strategies, the clumsy propaganda and ugly records of
human rights. All this was much to communism in fact that fascism has a
worse reputation for fairly obvious reasons.
The fortunes of war were the fall of fascism. Perhaps a better diplomacy
could have avoided it, although the opposition of the League of Nations
made this difficult. Moreover, globalism emerged, opposing nationalism. The
fall of communism was their crazy economic system. former communist nations
still struggling to recover. Neither ideology remains a major player in its
pure form. However, both inspired derived ideologies, a little better and a
little worse.
globalism
Commercial interests falsify American statecraft is nothing new. However,
the most important powerbrokers form of an international clique. In the
early 20th century, the super-rich clique has reached a great power.
Surprisingly, they were quite chummy with communism despite the
Dictatorship of the Proletariat Company. Some even wired the Bolsheviks lot
of money during the Russian Revolution. In the US, they were very
influential in the FDR administration s. Finally, they had their fingers in
the two major parties and the deep state. A small example of Shadow
Government & # 8221; Wall Street influence is Obama's cabinet selection.
As for religion, its influence is greatly diminished the past. However,
mass media & # 8212; The system propaganda arm & # 8212; takes its place.
The celebrities and pop culture are figures he promotes his priesthood.
Most are nauseatingly leftist (or at least know who signs their paychecks)
and use the power structure headed by the globalists. Academia also fills a
priestly role, ready for gravitas.
A surprising number of individuals have been raving about the New World
Order & # 8221;. The public considered this as sinister as hell, So
euphemisms were substituted as global governance and international
cooperation & # 8221;. The goal is to erase the borders gradually. In
practice, this means that free trade, mass immigration for population
replacement, and the transfer of sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats.
However, the way they describe it sounds pretty damn warm and fuzzy.
Plutocratic billionaires pull strings behind the scenes by buying
politicians, a danger to the open nature of democracy. Their favorite
pastime is social engineering, subvert governments, and golf.
Unfortunately, many of our leaders would be sickos are with a God complex.
Worse, they've cultural Marxism installed to a dominant ideology and
practice of its ongoing destabilization scenario. They live like kings and
looking to make all other farmers.
They subverted our society ve s legitimate basis of government. managed
democracy is not democracy. What right have they to do? Really, what makes
these douchebags so special?
More: how a small cabal using socialism & amp; Cultural Marxism to
consolidate the world of power
No comments:
Post a Comment