Friday, October 7, 2016

The Philosopher Kings

People have a predilection to kingly government. That’s been noticed for thousands of years. It’s even in the Bible.

I think it’s because a king and queen would be the father and mother and the citizens a family. I remember when Ross Perot was running some moron with a ponytail said to Perot, “Consider us your children.”

A woman I know said she saw some guy in a crowd call Bill Clinton, “Dad.”

Donald Trump is somewhat kingly and fatherly. Hillary Clinton, aka the Hildebeast, is more of an Evil Queen Wannabe. I’m sure she doesn’t look in the mirror asking it, “Who’s the fairest of them all?” but her attitude is that is she is the fairest (such is the power of myths and fairy tales).

The effeminate Brak Yomama is not fatherly or kingly in the slightest, nor is First Wookie queenly at all. Neither of the wimpy, inbred Bushes was fatherly.

Scholars for thousands of years have argued the pros and cons of kings. They are, believe it or not, some advantages to kings even with absolute power.

Some men, very few, can handle absolute power. They never seek it out and are always of a philosophical nature.

I had mentioned the greatest of the eastern kings was Akbar the Great, who was charmed by philosophy, which in those days meant ethics and how to live the best life and how to govern the best for the citizens.

In the West the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius is probably the best-known. But there were many others besides him, such as Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius.

These men were ethical and uninterested in power, which is why they were such great rulers.

There are two problems with those with absolute power: the kingdom falling apart on their deaths and finding a worthy successor (Marcus Aurelius chose his worthless son, Commodus).

Why do we not have any philosopher Presidents, just idiots? (that moron Dubya Shrub once said Jesus was his “favorite philosopher”).

Because under democracy only the amoral or immoral and power-mad run for office (I once had an 83-year-old man, who spent his life in politics, tell me had had met just once politician who didn’t have sex, money and drug problems. Among the Romans, Caligula was a perfect example of that).

In democracy the worst get on top, which is why democracies have always fallen. That’s why the United States as founded as a republic (which in many ways it still is).

Ancients scholars such as Cicero and Polybius argued mixed government were best. Taking the best of emperors, democracy and aristocracies. That’s what the United States was founded on, although these days the President has gained too much power, even though we vote them in.

How to predict the future? Not possible except to look to the past. And, again, the past tell us that democracies have always fallen.

The country will survive but good riddance to the government.

6 comments:

Twarog said...

"The effeminate Brak Yomama is not fatherly or kingly in the slightest..."

President Obama should have been sent during his childhood to live in Kenya with his father, even despite Barack Sr. being a washed-up drunkard. Without the malign influence of his whacked-out commie atheist mother, and with a massive IQ advantage on nearly everyone around him, he probably would have made a fine and capable President of Kenya- a country toward which he clearly feels more natural affection than this one.

Joshua Sinistar said...

Democracy never works. The wisdom of crowds is only good at finding answers to questions that don't really matter. Hard choices are never popular, and that's why democracy always fails. Democracy is based on popularity. Clowns and demagogues are never wise and hardly smart, but usually more popular than stern wise men. Trump is the best candidate the GOP has had in years. He doesn't waste time with outreach and summarizing plans. The average voter doesn't pay attention to issues. They want someone they like. Trump may not be classy, but Hillary has none either. Her pretensions of elitism are Ivory Tower snobbery with a large overcoat to hide the fat gained through a lifetime of sloth.
Rome lasted longer, because instead of Kings they had Emperors. Emperors take power through cunning, intrigue and ambition. Kings are crowned based on the loins impregnating the woman who slept with the King before. Greatness has many forms, but genetic heritage has proven time and again to fail in providing sons with the prowess of leadership their Fathers had.

Glen Filthie said...

All empires rise and fall, fellas.

This shit in America is no fault of the gov't. It is deliberate cultural suicide.

I see a break up of America when the socialist states try to feed off the capitalist ones. This is why the democrats are trying so hard to disarm the populace. There is going to be war.

As for GW Bush - the military liked him by and large. How can you not? The guy spent holidays with the troops while the black baboon in the Oval Office couldn't drag his arse off the golf course - even when his fellow black, blue bummed baboons were in peril as they were in New Orleans (again).

Bush was a good man and history will show him to be a visionary. You boys who have no grasp of power brokerage or geopolitics will never appreciate him because you only look at the history that happened - with no idea of what COULD have happened.

Robert What? said...

There is a big difference between the tyrants of today (including wannabe tyrants like Barry) and the kings of old. In older times the kings believed they were answerable to God. Modern tyrants (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol-Pot) believe they are answerable to no one but themselves. So there is no stay on their brutality.

Anonymous said...

"a country toward which he clearly feels more natural affection than this one."

Clearly, Obama has more in common with America than Kenya.

"Emperors take power through cunning, intrigue and ambition. Kings are crowned based on the loins impregnating the woman who slept with the King before. Greatness has many forms, but genetic heritage has proven time and again to fail in providing sons with the prowess of leadership their Fathers had."

Speaking of which, how is that goal of yours in becoming the next Holy Roman Emperor? You supposed off the charts IQ and superior genetic makeup is being wasted by commenting on this blog. Are you ever going to get off your fat ass and actually work toward your objective?

Joshua Sinistar said...

I'm at heart a soldier, but I'm no martyr. I do not promise miracles or claim I'm your long awaited Messiah. I'm waiting on you, and your people. When your delusions of voting your way out of Tyranny and ending corruption by electing the next savior end, we can get down to the dirty business of removing the trash and rebuilding our society. Your denial of the Holy Roman Empire with your flippancy is interesting. You would imagine it was as ludicrous as the delusional Utopian fantasies of Marxists the way you talk. Actually Napoleon Bonaparte rebuilt it rather easily after crushing a few petty fat petulant monarchs and threatening the old poop in the funny hat. Sure, he crowned himself, but I doubt any of you would want that crazy old bugger of choir boys from Rome to put a crown on your brow either. Egotism aside, the Roman Church has always been more about money and business than religion. That heretic Jesuit that touts globalism and welcomes invaders is just the latest in a long line of fruity poofs wearing a robe. These old buggers may give up women but they hardly abstain from sex. This time, I would prefer to leave these Roman heretics out of it, and acknowledge God directly. These poofy fruits and their nasty Sapphic Sisters have always made me nauseous.