The Forbidden Politics
Pericles and Aspasia in the studio of Phidias by Hector Leroux (1682). Pericles (495 – 429 BC) was the architect of the Democratic model in Athens, based on the Kleroterion; a Golden Age buoyed by economic growth and cultural flourishing.
The Social Contract
Every neighbouring state is an enemy and the enemy’s enemy is a friend […] in the absence of a government, the strong will swallow the weak; but under his protection, the weak resist the strong.
― Kautilya, The Arthashastra
Machiavelli considered human nature as selfish, greedy and corrupt. Naturally, the general welfare is lost in favor of individual interest. Adam Smith wrote: “the vulgarly called statesman or politician is a subject whose decisions are conditioned by personal interests.” Hobbes considered that we are all evil at heart, and social structures are the only thing that can keep us at bay. He was the promoter of the social contract, the pact according to which people are subordinate to a ruler who seeks the general good. Machiavelli’s book, The Prince, did not intend to feed people with power hunger; it is a guideline to help the statesman to keep political stability. His famous quote, “the end justifies the means” refers to the idea that the common good has to prevail over the individual interest. Kautilya asserts in Arthashastra that “the ultimate source of the kingdom's prosperity is its security and prosperity of its people”.
Power finds its basis in the “Master-Slave dialectic”. Strength feeds on weakness; the powerful, by nature, will always seek to predominate over the powerless. Every political and economic system, old and current, has consisted of a ruling class exploiting the dominant class, which lives in permanent control. This is how human nature works and how civilizations have been founded. Centralized and pyramidal social systems will always prevail since inequality is inevitable: there will always be more smart, strong or privileged people. The goal of politics is not to fix it but rather to maintain social order.
For many thousands of years, Indo-European religions conceived of the tripartite caste system as a system of social control. Plato, Confucius, and Lao-Tzu developed their political philosophy under the imprint of this ancient classical Code. In the Indo-Aryan social system, the political and the spiritual ruler had to be the same. The highest caste, equivalent to the Brahmin of India, was occupied by sages or philosophers of Plato's Republic; as the “golden” caste, they were entrusted with the political advancement of the civilization. The “silver” class consisted of individuals raised for war, and the “bronze” social class consisted of industrial and agricultural producers. These correspond to the Indo-Aryan Kshatriyas and Vaishya castes. According to Plato, justice is to ensure that each social group “do the work assigned to do”.
Legalism vs Confucianism
Confucius students.
Guide the young with virtue, regulate them with rituals, and they will have sense of shame and become upright.
― Confucius, Analects
Legalism is based on the belief that human beings are more inclined to do wrong than righteousness because they are motivated entirely by self-interest and require strict laws to control their impulses. Laws, however, end up becoming the shield of despotism disguised as moral precepts; since only those who create and implement the rules are allowed to break them. So what are laws and punishments for? The answer is simple: to instill control through “effortless action” (Wu Wei). By stimulating the fear of punishment and the greed for reward (severity & mercy), subordinates are forced to obey authority. “There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of the laws and in the name of justice” (Montesquieu).
Laws are intentionally extensive and contradictory to make them only understandable to the elitist groups that recognize their sophistication. In the year 1792 BC, Hammurabi (1810-1750 BC) established the first massive Code of strict laws “to establish the rule of justice on Earth, to destroy the wicked; so that the strong must not harm the weak”. Despite this preaching, the main rule, the law of retaliation, the rules of justice of an eye for an eye, did not apply equally: “If a man has destroyed the eye of a man of the kind of gentleman, they will destroy your eye. If he has destroyed the eye of a commoner, he will pay a silver mine”. The laws, unsurprisingly, only favored the ruling class. The Code was made visible to all. However, few could read and write at that time. Hammurabi was the pioneer of an ancient method of social repression, based on ignorance.
The common idea that a strong government is needed to combat disorder among the people makes the grave mistake of confusing cause and effect. Lao Tzu wrote; “The more laws and restrictions there are, the poorer people become. The more rules and regulations, the more thieves and robbers […] With its laws and regulations more numerous than an ox's hair, the government becomes an evil oppressor.” Lao-tzu believed that only government inaction could allow the individual to prosper and achieve happiness. Government intervention always leads to war, confusion and chaos.
The government is almost never created to benefit the people, but seek to control and plunder them. In this way, through legalism, theft and corruption among the people are encouraged. Confucius repudiated the laws since they intentionally reinforced immorality and cunning, which inevitably led to injustice. Montesquieu's famous statement: “When people have good customs, the laws become simple”, refers to the fact that if traditional values are preserved, legalism can be dispensed. “Laws are imposed; customs are inspired” [Montesquieu].
Eliminate bad laws, promote good customs, and prisons will be empty. This is the maxim of every great statesman. The most obvious sign that a society is progressing does not lie in the sophistication of the laws, but in their elimination. When Dharma (righteousness) prevails, there is no need for laws, and that is the essence of Confucianism. Filial piety becomes the main basis of individual moral conduct and social harmony.
Is the State essential? According to Zhuangzi, no, not really; the world “simply does not need government: in fact, it should not be governed.” The philosopher Baruch Spinoza points out that freedom can only be achieved when human reason controls passion. Only then will no laws be required to enslave us; therefore, there will be no need for a State. “Government is an evil; it is only the thoughtlessness and vices of men that make it a necessary evil. It is in vain to hope for any liberty and happiness; without reason and virtue, for where there is no virtue, there will be crime, and where there is crime, there must be Government […] We must reform ourselves […] When all men are good and wise, Government will of itself decay” [Percy Bysshe Shelley].
Suffocracy
The Great Emperor Ashoka - Movie poster.
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
Ozymandias (excerpt), by Percy Bysshe Shelley
“I am time, the destroyer of all; I have come to consume the world.” [Bhagavad Gita 11.32] No ruler or empire can overcome decay and oblivion. Renewal is the Universal Law; nothing lasts forever. The wise ruler distinguishes himself from the tyrant by recognizing it. The trope “memento mori” (‘remember that you have to die’), confesses Emperor Marcus Aurelius in Meditations, emptied his ambitions of greatness; reminding him that immortality could only lie in remembrance; be it from his tyranny or his benevolence. “It is the historical legacy”, he said, “that transforms the great empires into ruins or monuments.”
According to Confucius, in an ideal government, “a statesman should reign like heaven”, that is, lead by a good example. Commoners should only obey their sovereign only if he rules according to the right principles. Confucius encouraged the righteous and intellectuals to take power, much like Plato's proposals on suffocracy, the rule of the wisest. With his greatness and flaws, Emperor Asoka the Great is considered one of the most exemplary rulers who ever lived. He combined a saint's piety with a king's practical qualities, managing to influence and rule through Dharma, without constitutions, without laws. And what is Dharma? It goes beyond simply doing the right thing—the form of mercy, truthfulness, purity, and virtue proceed from the divine.
According to his own accounts, Ashoka “the callous”, conquered the Kalinga country (modern Orissa state) in the eighth year of his reign (260 BC). Being an eyewitness to the horrors of the slaughter, the sufferings that the war inflicted on the defeated moved him deeply. Despite all the evil he had unleashed, he could still repent and remedy it. He renounced armed conquests and asked that his ministers be spiritual teachers first, then magistrates. He considered himself the administrator of his subjects’ welfare rather than a ruler.
Ashoka had a strong commitment to changing society through the propagation of Dharma by using the precepts of Buddhism. Legalism was not required for the political consolidation of his government. Fourteen rock edicts erected in 257 BC describe his moral and spiritual convictions. He managed to achieve something extraordinary; he truly won the hearts of his people by establishing the Buddha Sasana. Legend has it that his body was honored for seven days and nights during his cremation, being revered as Ashoka, “the pious”. Less than 50 years after his reign, the Maurya Empire collapsed. But what continues to endure is Ashoka’s immortal humanist ideology.
In the history of the world, there have been thousands of kings and emperors who called themselves ‘their highnesses’, ‘their majesties’. They shone for a brief moment, and as quickly disappeared. But Ashoka shines and shines like a bright star, almost alone.
― H.G. Wells
The Principle of Union and Division
The Intervention of the Sabine Women, Jacques-Louis David, 1799.
The universe acts with Chesed (mercy) and with Gevurah (severity) and so with everything else.
― Maimonides
According to Empedocles, the cosmic cycle is based on the conflict between love and discord; the first force is extensive, and the second is restrictive. The force of “love” unifies multiplicity, while the force of “discord” divides unity. In the perpetual struggle between the cosmic forces of repulsion and attraction, the “ice and fire” in Hans Horbiger’s theory, discord advances more and more in respect of love, making this world cruel, chaotic and imperfect. In the mentality of the Indo-European peoples, the Atlantean-Hyperborean Golden Age was a time of justice, harmony, beauty and wisdom. But humankind was degrading and losing its divine Nature, moving away from Dharma, until giving rise to the current Iron Age of degeneration and materialism.
The history of humanity is the history of violence, of the strong crushing the weak. Hostility, conflict, division and inequality are inevitable. If society is to function properly, says Carl Schmitt, there is no point in eliminating inequality because it will always prevail. Instead, a strong sovereign should be concerned with maintaining order and control of the population, focusing on the idea of the common good. In this context, it can only be achieved by pointing out a common foe. An external enemy establishes internal social harmony and preserves the ideal of the general welfare. In other words, the Principle of Union.
The Imperial Indo-Aryan or Tellurocracy (Greco-Roman-Indo-Iranian) model is based on the Principle of Union. It exalts the idea of seeking the common good and national-racial unity to form a single indivisible socio-spiritual entity. Greco-Roman empires were based on the principle of Honor; the conquered provinces preserved their cultural integrity, language and customs. Fascism and National Socialism were the last historical examples of this model. Fascism comes from the term fascia littorio, the bundle of rods. It means “unity is strength”. National Socialism creates an even more deeply rooted spiritual and biological bond, the idea of race, identifying blood and soil with their charismatic leader. “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!” (A people, an empire, a guide!)
On the other hand, the Imperial Synarchic or Thalassocratic Model (Carthaginian-Semitic) is based on the Principle of Division or Solomonic principle: “the King must divide to reign.” Subjugated peoples are enslaved, humiliated, corrupted, dehumanized, and transformed into tools for economic exchange. The people are culturally indoctrinated, specifically to attack their racial-national unity. As in The Tower of Babel, Individuals can no longer coexist because and end up fighting with each other. The synarchy maintains control at the cost of social homogeneity (Ordo Ab Chao).
Modern “democracy”, which has little to do with the Athenian democracy, is the current example of this model. Democracy degenerates into a particracy, where ideals are promoted in opposition that only serves to generate internal division, a controlled dialectic, but not “by the people and for the people”. Democracy and parliamentarism make the human tendency toward conflict apply within the community, dividing and weakening it, generating permanent political chaos. “Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand” [Matthew 12:25].
For Aristotle, unity is the indispensable condition for ensuring a people's sovereignty. Democracy is only possible within homogeneous ethnic groups. A multi-ethnic society is thus anti-democratic and chaotic, for it lacks philia, this profound, flesh-and-blood fraternity of citizens. Tyrants and despots always rule over highly fragmented societies: They divide to rule, and they want the Nation divided by ethnic rivalries to prevent all philia from developing.
The National Socialist Politics
Reichsparteitag NSDAP, Nürenberg, 1935.
A nation does not choose its institutions at will any more than it chooses the color of its hair or its eyes; all institutions and governments are the product of race. They are not the creators of an epoch, but are created by it.
― Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd
National socialism was based on Plato's idea of sophocracy, were a Wise Leader (Führer) is obliged to assume full responsibility for his acts. Naturally, it is against modern ‘Democracy’. In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote: “The democracy of the Western world today is the forerunner of Marxism. In a parliamentary, there is no responsibility. Responsibility presupposes the idea of personality.” Like the laws of nature, Tradition is patriarchal, hierarchical, undemocratic, and aristocratic. The National Socialist ideology, based on the Indo-Aryan imperial model, sought a return to the Golden Age through the Principle of Union. The Nazi party sought social unification based on the idea of nationalism and race, in opposition to the Marxist conception of class struggle, that is, the Solomonic Principle of Division. It directed its main struggle outward towards the common foreign enemy, Communism (Zionism).
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion describe the global synarchy intentions to promote deep moral and spiritual decay through subversive and materialistic ideologies, stimulating the dissolution of religions, family and nationalism, in order to ruin all the unity of society. Marxism, that is, Judaism, promotes these anti-values, while Nationalism makes people proud of their Homeland and race. The National Socialist propaganda encouraged family, a healthy and prosperous culture. Education was intended to produce a brotherhood based on blood union: “the common good before the individual good”. Karl Haushofer’s theory of Lebensraum, “living space”, was concerned mainly with establishing racially orientated fraternity.
The “good government”, the eunomy, characteristic of ancient Athens or Sparta, was based on the internalization of a moral of honor (aidós and timé) that demanded a total homage to the Nation rather than on the blind obedience of laws. The Weltanschauung offers a vision comparable, where virtue prevails over legalism. The National Socialist society taught children to make honorable decisions according to the situations they encountered. The idea of disgrace exercised a greater ethical rectitude than the fear of criminal punishment. An obvious success of this method was its implementation in the Hitler Youth, making juvenile delinquency in the Third Reich almost non-existent.
The State is a means to an end: the preservation and progress of a community of physically and spiritually homogeneous creatures [...] If, through governmental power, a people is led towards its destruction, then the rebellion is not only a right of all the members of this society, but it is their duty.
― Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
