My previous post, a “Creed”
describing some of the characteristics of an absolute sovereign, was
received with bewilderment and some distaste. In hindsight, that makes
complete sense. You could say I was trying to channel ancient spirits
with powerful, old evocations, and I wouldn’t entirely disagree--“He Was
Good King” is the only recognizable sentence in Beowulf. Such magics are bizarre and futile from an outsider’s perspective. Allow me to explain.
Absolute
rule requires a ruler, so any sincere discussion of it requires faith.
You have to believe that there is such a person of such unshakeable gall
as to confer sovereignty onto himself. It seems this particular flavor
of literal self-aggrandizement is generally perceived as boorish, passé,
and unspeakably taboo. Even in the most reactionary circles, absolutism
is proposed tepidly with appeals to “tradition” and “the security of
the people.” Well, it’s not up to you or any of that. If such a person
exists, they’ll attempt to do as described previously, and that’s the
point. If you don’t believe such a person exists, then absolute rule
will never survive first contact with an advisor. Can you put yourself
in the shoes of someone who told his subjects to build a 445’ tall
pyramid of solid stone for him? If you can’t, then you lack the faith.
And that’s okay! Absolute rule just isn’t for you, is all.
Another
barrier to understanding is despite the cultural proximity, the
reactionary crowd are political theorists pretty much by definition, and
absolute rule is anti-political by definition. Everyone gives up on
politics and goes home--and again, that’s the point. To genuinely
believe absolute rule is the way to go, you’re telling yourself to
relinquish your hobby and the fruits of your labor. That’s a hard sell
for most people.
This one’s more a
matter of life experience rather than worldview, but most people
haven’t subjected themselves to long term, day-to-day servitude, so they
don’t know its pleasures. A reactionary might espouse the virtues of
hierarchy and serving a greater purpose, but it’s hard to shake that
learned, visceral distaste for being told what to do without finding out
otherwise himself.
There are
certainly other reasons besides these which would deter you from
considering it a tangible option. Put simply, we don’t live in the age
of kings anymore; who would want one, and who would want to be one? They
won’t ever come back by popular demand.
But
I would want to see their return. I’ve written as much toward that
effect: To ignite those passions within the man totally lacking
perspective, him with dreams of conquest and unspeakable ambitions. I
wish to live unfettered by the limp, profane exploits of petty statesmen
and ideology-pushers, toiling in humble servitude of a worthy ruler.
I
hope this has put some context to my previous invocations. I would
gladly discuss absolute rule in further detail presuming we have that
first requirement of faith in common. If not, I don’t think we have much
to talk about in this regard. Politics just isn’t my thing.
Comments
Post a Comment