- 29 Sep 2003 00:31
#29130
Enlightened Despot the Great
by Benjamin “Sapper†H.
ben@benhorvath.com
1490 words
A despot is not necessarily “cruelâ€, “evilâ€, or “terribleâ€. In fact, the word “despot†was first coined as a title given to Justinian of Byzantine as a title of honor, and was later used by the Greek Orthodox Church as a word for their bishops and patriarchs.
Catherine the Great of Russia is a ruler belonging to a group of rulers known as the “Enlightened Despotsâ€, and began her reign by ruthlessly executing her weak husband, the emperor Peter III. She supported the Westernization of Russia and believed that a wise ruler should use reason over passion to improve their country (as she read in The Spirit of Laws, by the French political theorist Montesquieu). When the Pugachev Rebellion (1773-1774) broke out in southeastern Europe, Catherine was quick to put it done, and had its leader was executed. She ruled until died of a natural death in 1796. Frederick the Great, another Enlightened Despot, also held a firm, absolutist grip on his State, and made Prussia an industrialized empire.
These are the kinds of despots I am referring to: one who puts the good of the State and the common good over that of an individual (including the despot himself, and his possessions), is fair, benevolent, just, and strives to progress the State technologically, socially, economically, and internationally. He is much like the great rulers of the Age of Enlightenment, Augustus Caesar, and Napoleon.
And following all of the Enlightened Despots lead, the best despot is one who does not rule with emotion, but reason, objectivity, and logic, because if it is evil for a despot in his furry to destroy a village for the errors of one, it logically is evil for a despot in his sympathy to allow a wrongdoer go unpunished.
These despots are empirical evidence that progress can come through “cruelty†and “absolutismâ€. The wise despot realizes that he should not care about being considered a “tyrant†or “cruel†if the circumstances call for sacrifice to protect the State, or make critical advancements (e.g., restoring the environment). This should not be considered “cruelâ€, and if it is, one should not care. Because Catherine murdered her husband and bloodily put down a rebellion does not mean she was “cruelâ€, as she did it for the benefit of Russia, which had higher priority than the well being of her husband. A despot obviously cannot be held to the same ethics of a common person.
It should, however, be considered cruel if a despot destroys villages for the mistake of one, or pillages and rapes his citizens for selfish material gain, and not for the good of the State. That is true despotic evil.
With that said, if it is necessary to punish or intimidate a few to protect the State and its people, than it must be done, because if the few are not punished and intimidated, they will terrorize the State and its people. One of those two solutions harms the individual only, while the other harms the common good. The first is the humane solution, and the second is truly cruel, and it is so because of too much mercy.
If criminals where not punished, murder, robbery, rape and other such crimes would occur unchecked and destroy the State and its people. So, if it is necessary to eliminate (not necessarily death) a fraction of a quarter of a percent of the people for the benefit of the majority, a despot should not hesitate. And all eliminations must be done mercilessly, efficiently, and in one swift blow.
All of the ruler’s that have earned the title of “the great†and/or have been accepted into the ranks of the Enlightened Despots have all been considered enlightened, fair, and just and not lenient, sympathetic, and merciful. As the empirical evidence points to, each one of these esteemed depots has had to be brutal, cruel, and sometimes wicked to advance their States. The historians have rewarded them with the title of “the Great†or “Enlightenedâ€. No strong, able ruler in the history of the earth has made progress with or without those qualities.
It is foolish to pretend that a despot can rule by being “nice†while still being undemocratic. In the history of the earth, there has never been an undemocratic ruler who has been “niceâ€, maintained his State and power, and progressed it for very long. On the other side of the coin, there have been examples of people who have ruled their States extremely harsh and totalitarian such as Stalin and Hitler, but still maintained their power, and progressed their State (when talking about the Nazi regime, one must also remember that they did not collapse internally, but where simply outgunned). So if a despot can balance both totalitarianism and leniency, they are excellent, but if they cannot, one will be able to rule, hold their States, and progress it with totalitarianism, while through being “nice†one cannot, as the empirical data proves. If one where to say that a despot cannot rule by fear, I would also say that all one has to do is look at the Catholic Church; the Pope once had immense power, and could easily keep his subjects in line by the fear of going to hell if they disobeyed him. There are, of course, many, many examples from history, while it is interesting to note that there are no examples of one who has ruled by being “niceâ€.
All able rulers have been skilled in the art of warfare, and most before the 20th century expanded their State through conquest. The mastery of war is essential to a despot, and that cannot be denied. If one does not believe in war or violence, it does not erase its existence, or even make it seem “friendlierâ€. As Clausewitz said, “War is not merely a political act, but a real political instrument—a continuation of political intercourse—a carrying out of the same by other means.†To kill and die for the State in time of war is the true test, for if one refuses to, they have no business being a fascist, living in this country. All past fascists have thought so.
A despot is respected and honored for keeping lofty ideals by his people and his enemies. However, the wise despot is willing to temporarily (or permanently depending on the circumstances) discard them for the benefit of the State, because if a despot keeps them in practice, he will certainly fall. It is counter-fascist (and sometimes evil) to put one’s individual beliefs over that of the State and its people. The Holy Alliance of the 19th century found this out the hard way, and eventually used it as a facade for acts of absolutism. Thus a despot who loses control of his State for lofty or high ideals that he chooses to carry out fanatically loses his State for foolish reasons.
And if it is necessary to commit “evil†for the future betterment of the State, than it should not be considered “evilâ€â€”a word that is too poorly defined and varies from person to person—but “necessaryâ€. Losing one’s State for an ill-defined value is foolish.
So if for the common good it is necessary to deceive to achieve or maintain a despot’s power and continue progressing one’s State, than so be it. Deception allowed Augustus Caesar to achieve and maintain power while progressing the State, and Western civilization (i.e., the Augustan Age). Every wise military general has said that deception is an essential element of war, and it is thus an essential element of the competition for power. It is a tool to be refused by the foolish and the blind, and should not be considered “evilâ€, for it is for the good of the State. If one where to tell me that a fascist political party should hide nothing, but drop the name fascist and take up a democratic stance, I would call him hypocritical, for while he has repudiated deception, he has also supported it.
And in regards to seizing power, a wannabe despot must separate the “State†of the United States with its obsolete government. If it ever came to sweeping aside the current democratic government with a fascist one, it should not be considered “anti-American†to chose the fascist government, as it is for the good of the State, because a fascist government can get done in a day what it takes the present system a decade to do.
As history has proven, the rulers that have been considered “cruel†and “terrible†have been those bestowed with the “the Great†titles and been named “Enlightened†because of their progress and fairness. The fascist despots of the future will not be called “the Great†or “Enlightened†if they are “niceâ€, only if they follow the paths of Catherine or Caesar will they be remembered and esteemed, even if they are not during their own reign.
by Benjamin “Sapper†H.
ben@benhorvath.com
1490 words
A despot is not necessarily “cruelâ€, “evilâ€, or “terribleâ€. In fact, the word “despot†was first coined as a title given to Justinian of Byzantine as a title of honor, and was later used by the Greek Orthodox Church as a word for their bishops and patriarchs.
Catherine the Great of Russia is a ruler belonging to a group of rulers known as the “Enlightened Despotsâ€, and began her reign by ruthlessly executing her weak husband, the emperor Peter III. She supported the Westernization of Russia and believed that a wise ruler should use reason over passion to improve their country (as she read in The Spirit of Laws, by the French political theorist Montesquieu). When the Pugachev Rebellion (1773-1774) broke out in southeastern Europe, Catherine was quick to put it done, and had its leader was executed. She ruled until died of a natural death in 1796. Frederick the Great, another Enlightened Despot, also held a firm, absolutist grip on his State, and made Prussia an industrialized empire.
These are the kinds of despots I am referring to: one who puts the good of the State and the common good over that of an individual (including the despot himself, and his possessions), is fair, benevolent, just, and strives to progress the State technologically, socially, economically, and internationally. He is much like the great rulers of the Age of Enlightenment, Augustus Caesar, and Napoleon.
And following all of the Enlightened Despots lead, the best despot is one who does not rule with emotion, but reason, objectivity, and logic, because if it is evil for a despot in his furry to destroy a village for the errors of one, it logically is evil for a despot in his sympathy to allow a wrongdoer go unpunished.
These despots are empirical evidence that progress can come through “cruelty†and “absolutismâ€. The wise despot realizes that he should not care about being considered a “tyrant†or “cruel†if the circumstances call for sacrifice to protect the State, or make critical advancements (e.g., restoring the environment). This should not be considered “cruelâ€, and if it is, one should not care. Because Catherine murdered her husband and bloodily put down a rebellion does not mean she was “cruelâ€, as she did it for the benefit of Russia, which had higher priority than the well being of her husband. A despot obviously cannot be held to the same ethics of a common person.
It should, however, be considered cruel if a despot destroys villages for the mistake of one, or pillages and rapes his citizens for selfish material gain, and not for the good of the State. That is true despotic evil.
With that said, if it is necessary to punish or intimidate a few to protect the State and its people, than it must be done, because if the few are not punished and intimidated, they will terrorize the State and its people. One of those two solutions harms the individual only, while the other harms the common good. The first is the humane solution, and the second is truly cruel, and it is so because of too much mercy.
If criminals where not punished, murder, robbery, rape and other such crimes would occur unchecked and destroy the State and its people. So, if it is necessary to eliminate (not necessarily death) a fraction of a quarter of a percent of the people for the benefit of the majority, a despot should not hesitate. And all eliminations must be done mercilessly, efficiently, and in one swift blow.
All of the ruler’s that have earned the title of “the great†and/or have been accepted into the ranks of the Enlightened Despots have all been considered enlightened, fair, and just and not lenient, sympathetic, and merciful. As the empirical evidence points to, each one of these esteemed depots has had to be brutal, cruel, and sometimes wicked to advance their States. The historians have rewarded them with the title of “the Great†or “Enlightenedâ€. No strong, able ruler in the history of the earth has made progress with or without those qualities.
It is foolish to pretend that a despot can rule by being “nice†while still being undemocratic. In the history of the earth, there has never been an undemocratic ruler who has been “niceâ€, maintained his State and power, and progressed it for very long. On the other side of the coin, there have been examples of people who have ruled their States extremely harsh and totalitarian such as Stalin and Hitler, but still maintained their power, and progressed their State (when talking about the Nazi regime, one must also remember that they did not collapse internally, but where simply outgunned). So if a despot can balance both totalitarianism and leniency, they are excellent, but if they cannot, one will be able to rule, hold their States, and progress it with totalitarianism, while through being “nice†one cannot, as the empirical data proves. If one where to say that a despot cannot rule by fear, I would also say that all one has to do is look at the Catholic Church; the Pope once had immense power, and could easily keep his subjects in line by the fear of going to hell if they disobeyed him. There are, of course, many, many examples from history, while it is interesting to note that there are no examples of one who has ruled by being “niceâ€.
All able rulers have been skilled in the art of warfare, and most before the 20th century expanded their State through conquest. The mastery of war is essential to a despot, and that cannot be denied. If one does not believe in war or violence, it does not erase its existence, or even make it seem “friendlierâ€. As Clausewitz said, “War is not merely a political act, but a real political instrument—a continuation of political intercourse—a carrying out of the same by other means.†To kill and die for the State in time of war is the true test, for if one refuses to, they have no business being a fascist, living in this country. All past fascists have thought so.
A despot is respected and honored for keeping lofty ideals by his people and his enemies. However, the wise despot is willing to temporarily (or permanently depending on the circumstances) discard them for the benefit of the State, because if a despot keeps them in practice, he will certainly fall. It is counter-fascist (and sometimes evil) to put one’s individual beliefs over that of the State and its people. The Holy Alliance of the 19th century found this out the hard way, and eventually used it as a facade for acts of absolutism. Thus a despot who loses control of his State for lofty or high ideals that he chooses to carry out fanatically loses his State for foolish reasons.
And if it is necessary to commit “evil†for the future betterment of the State, than it should not be considered “evilâ€â€”a word that is too poorly defined and varies from person to person—but “necessaryâ€. Losing one’s State for an ill-defined value is foolish.
So if for the common good it is necessary to deceive to achieve or maintain a despot’s power and continue progressing one’s State, than so be it. Deception allowed Augustus Caesar to achieve and maintain power while progressing the State, and Western civilization (i.e., the Augustan Age). Every wise military general has said that deception is an essential element of war, and it is thus an essential element of the competition for power. It is a tool to be refused by the foolish and the blind, and should not be considered “evilâ€, for it is for the good of the State. If one where to tell me that a fascist political party should hide nothing, but drop the name fascist and take up a democratic stance, I would call him hypocritical, for while he has repudiated deception, he has also supported it.
And in regards to seizing power, a wannabe despot must separate the “State†of the United States with its obsolete government. If it ever came to sweeping aside the current democratic government with a fascist one, it should not be considered “anti-American†to chose the fascist government, as it is for the good of the State, because a fascist government can get done in a day what it takes the present system a decade to do.
As history has proven, the rulers that have been considered “cruel†and “terrible†have been those bestowed with the “the Great†titles and been named “Enlightened†because of their progress and fairness. The fascist despots of the future will not be called “the Great†or “Enlightened†if they are “niceâ€, only if they follow the paths of Catherine or Caesar will they be remembered and esteemed, even if they are not during their own reign.
- By SpecialOlympian
- By Potemkin
- By Puffer Fish