“When you come at the King, you best not miss”

Between the assassination attempt of one political candidate and the successful “koup”ⁱ of the other political candidate, the lizards sure seem to be pulling out all the stops this summer.

Of course, it’s not like we even need a cabal to explain our historical moment! I mean, every civilization in the history of forever has had a King (and castes)… not that this prevented a buncha primitive vagabonds from the craggy rocks of the North Sea from thinking they could “improve” on the human organizational condition, but the fact that they pretend to be “secular” and “democratic” while still needing to reference “Kings” and “Gods” in every speech is all the Freudian slippage we should need.ⁱⁱ

Tragic(omic)ally, per Plato,ⁱⁱⁱ we’re still rather unlikely to reinstitute the House of Bourbon anytime soon, and are rather more likely due for a tyrant.^iv So nevermind a fiery few months, we’re in for a fiery few generations…perhaps even centuries. And not just from wildfire smoke!^v

How ironic then, that in this Hesiodic Iron Age, that optimism should prevail.

1. Yarvin notes:

   

   

   Basically, Virgil Abloh called it. As great art does! ↩

2. Does this look (potentially) AI-generated to anyone else?

   
   ↩

3. To sum up the relevant portions of The Republic:
   

   1. Aristocracy (Rule of the Best)
   Characteristics:
   Aristocracy, in Plato’s sense, refers to a government led by philosopher-kings, who are the most just and wise individuals. It is the ideal state, where rulers are guided by reason and aim for the common good. The society is structured according to a strict hierarchy based on merit and aptitude, divided into three classes: the rulers (philosopher-kings), the auxiliaries (warriors), and the producers (farmers, artisans, etc.). Justice, in this context, means that everyone performs the role best suited to their nature, and the rulers govern with knowledge and virtue.
   Transition to Timocracy:
   The decline begins when the ruling class fails to produce philosopher-kings due to a disruption in the educational system or the mixing of metals (i.e., the natural hierarchy of gold, silver, bronze souls) through marriage or other forms of social mixing. This leads to a focus on honor and military prowess rather than wisdom and justice, setting the stage for the next regime.
   2. Timocracy (Rule of the Honorable)
   Characteristics:
   A timocracy values honor and military strength above all. The rulers are often warriors who are more concerned with honor and reputation than with wisdom. The society is more militaristic, and the ruling class prioritizes personal honor and victory over the collective good. The rulers are still somewhat virtuous but are increasingly motivated by spirit (thumos) rather than pure reason.
   Transition to Oligarchy:
   As the desire for honor becomes intertwined with the desire for wealth, the ruling class begins to accumulate and value property and wealth, leading to the emergence of an oligarchy. The state begins to differentiate more sharply between the wealthy and the poor, with the rich seeking to protect their interests.

   3. Oligarchy (Rule of the Few)
   Characteristics:
   Oligarchy is characterized by the rule of a small group of wealthy individuals. The government prioritizes wealth and property above all else. The society becomes divided between the rich and the poor, with significant inequality. The poor have limited political power. Governance is driven by the economic interests of the few, leading to a lack of military preparedness and a decline in civic virtue.
   Transition to Democracy:
   The increasing dissatisfaction among the poor, combined with the oligarchs’ fear and mistrust of the masses, leads to a rise in social tension. Eventually, the poor, seeking greater equality and freedom, overthrow the oligarchs, leading to the establishment of democracy.

   4. Democracy (Rule of the Many)
   Characteristics:
   Democracy is characterized by a high degree of freedom and equality. Political power is distributed widely, and citizens have the liberty to pursue their desires. This regime values diversity and allows for the pursuit of individual happiness, often at the expense of order and discipline. However, the lack of focus on virtue and the good life leads to a chaotic and disordered society, where excessive freedom can lead to lawlessness.
   Transition to Tyranny:
   The excessive freedom and equality in democracy lead to the emergence of demagogues—charismatic leaders who manipulate public opinion and exploit class tensions for personal gain. As the society becomes more disordered, people begin to seek a strong leader who promises to restore order and protect their interests. This sets the stage for the rise of a tyrant, who initially appears as a protector but ultimately seizes power for personal rule.

   5. Tyranny (Rule of One)
   Characteristics:
   Tyranny is the worst and most unjust regime. It arises when a single individual, the tyrant, seizes absolute power. The tyrant rules through fear and oppression, prioritizing personal desires and maintaining power through manipulation and violence. The society under tyranny suffers greatly, as the tyrant’s paranoia and cruelty lead to widespread injustice and suffering.

   ↩

4. Per MP, we’re nowhere near a monarchic moment right now, no matter how much Lee Kwan Yew, Putin, Netanyahu, Xi, or even Trump might try. From MP’s 2014 treatise “On The Superiority of Monarchy (or, adnotations to Why the Worst Get on Top)” [emphasis added]:
   

   From home we bring the concept of Monarchy, which is that form of political organisation of a group where the sovereignity of the entire group is vested in the person of one member of that group. The only practical alternative ever seen, and the only theoretically possible alternative for that matter, is not having the sovereignity of the group invested at all.

   That’s it – much like the male human over the age of thirty could either be a man or not be a man. He may call the state of not being a man “being a metrosexual” or “being a hipster” or “being a CEO” or anything the hell, but in the end it makes little difference – about as little as calling the bums “homeless” or “habitationally challenged” or “inequitably housed” or whatever you may come up with. Either they’re bums or they aren’t, either he’s a man or he’s not, either sovereignity is vested in a person or it’s not vested at all.

   The various political forms of organisation that fail to be a Monarchy find themselves in the practical world roughly in the situation of the various flying machines that couldn’t fly pre 1900, or of the various perpetuum mobile machines that aren’t actually perpetually mobile today : unable to actually distinguish themselves from their alleged peers substantially, they proceed to distinguish themselves through generous application of colorful paint, generally understood as “branding”. […]

   Take a certain Jew that may have lived about two thousand years ago : has he been confronted with the alternative of either assuming dictatorial powers or abandoning his plans ?

   What fucking plans ? Why does the dictator have to absolutely have some sort of plans, aforethought ? Maybe he’s a dictator in the proper sense, because his group perceived him as worthy. He didn’t go to them, like an obnoxious lawyer spawn, with a list of whatever items are fashionable – promises, intentions, qualities, college degrees – to ask to be made a dictator and thus have the gaping void and ontological fear of nothingness chewing away at his frail identity somehow resolved. No, maybe they came to him, saying “look Cincinnatus, you are the best among us, and the best by so very far you must be our dictator” and he said “Maybe; we’ll see”. What plans did then Cincinnatus have, exactly ? That all men must assemble on the Camp of Mars ? And if they hadn’t, what exact moral impediment’d have that been for him ?

   ↩

5. The current weather is really nothing you wouldn’t expect during Great Depression 2.0! Same for the homelessness…

   

   ↩