We have a lot of political theories. The Cathedral. Bioleninism. The Gay/Woke Agenda. It begins to feel like we believe in conspiracy theories. This must be what it’s like to be a woman and blame everything on the Patriarchy. But really, you don’t need to believe in actual conspiracies to think that the world is run a particular way.
The reason is simple: self-interest. Now, it’s almost a cliché to consider that competition and cooperation are two sides of the same coin. Competing interests must cooperate to some degree. Usually you visit chaos when you try to go alone. Hence, the conglomeration of government, the universities and big business. Individuals and corporations have interests, and sometimes they will share these interests with each other, and when that happens you end up with a conspiracy. I don’t want to talk about Illuminati or the Masons or Rosicrucians or whatever other sinister group may be your cup of tea. What I am interested in is how the people are being shaped.
It’s well-known now that polarization is at an all time high. People camp themselves in the Left or the Right and disdain the middle. OK, whatever, old news, huh? But how did that happen? How did we move from a society that mostly believed the same stuff to one where it is almost better we split into separate nations entirely? Most people see this polarization as a cause of the malaise, not a symptom itself.
Here’s how I see it. A democracy is ‘government by the people’ but the caveat is that they elect a certain class to ‘govern’ for them. Where in a monarchy the king ruled and had his court, in a democracy the people, the great mass of people, takes the place of the king. That means we need to figure out who the court is, and as I am alluding to that would be our governments. Like a corrupt court of yore, many of these people got their positions through nepotism and gossip and favours and basically not by the will of the ruler (the people).
It’s a little like King Théoden being manipulated by Wormtongue. Now, there is obviously a greater force behind Wormtongue and we know it as Sauron, the great evil, mediated through another henchmen, Saruman. So the king is told what to do and it appears for all intents and purposes that it is his own decision and choice. This is clearly not the case with anyone with eyes to see. In our Western societies it is clear, and never more clear than after COVID, that the rulers, the people, are the ones who do as they are told. We have court jesters deciding the laws and dominating the lands. ‘Two masks,’ they say with a cackle and the king snaps them over his face.
In the past kings were given advice on how to rule. Machiavelli is the obvious example here, but there were many guidebooks throughout history and of course hereditary monarchy allowed for some passage of wisdom. There were good men in the court who aided their rulers. The main issue with democracy is that the rulers are not taught how to rule. They are taught to listen to sound bites, three word slogans, to tick a box, and to get outraged by the other side. There is no advice on how to rule with a level head.
Could democracy be saved by politically educated voters? I don’t mean, of course, what most people mean by this, that is, reading the policies of your preferred party. That’s just drinking the Koolaid. That is akin to hearing that there are traitors in court and setting up a committee on how to flush them out. Having recently read the basic writings of Han Feizi, I think there is quite a lot to think about if we want The People to rule correctly. The advice is specifically how a king should rule his court if he wishes to survive and thrive, but I don’t see why there can’t be lessons a demos can’t take from these teachings.
For example:
The ruler must not reveal his desires; for if he reveals his desires his ministers will put on the mask that pleases him. He must not reveal his will; for if he does so his ministers will show a different face.
In a sense, the media markets desires to the people, which are then revealed, and then they can be manipulated. The people are constantly polled, queried, put into focus groups and so on. The court knows what the ruler desires at every moment. They can get away with lockdowns because they know enough of the constituency will accept it. Wormtongue telling Théoden it is safer inside. It is a perfect feedback loop that is just at home in politics as it is in the marketing department.
Now let’s go through a few other choice quotes:
The enlightened ruler is never over liberal in his rewards, never over lenient in his punishments.
If there is one thing the public is know to do, it is to be swayed by emotion when it comes to rewards/punishment (voting in and voting out a head of state/party).
There are no men in the court of a doomed state. When I say there are no men, I do not mean that the actual number of men at court is any less than usual. But the powerful families seek only to benefit each other and not to enrich the state; the high ministers seek only to honor each other and not to honor their sovereign; and the petty officials cling to their stipends and work to make influential friends instead of attending to their duties. And the reason such a state of affairs has come about is that the ruler does not make important decisions on the basis of law, but puts faith in whatever his subordinates do.
Need I say more? As we’re told that the world is turning into hell in a handbasket, what do our leaders do but make petty rules and bomb poor countries? All in the name of…what? Self-interest.
The ruler of men has two worries: If he employs only worthies as ministers, then they will use their worthy reputations to control the ruler. However, if he promotes men unreasonably state affairs will become blocked and nothing will get done. Hence, if the ruler values worthies, his ministers will all ornament their actions in order to exploit his desires. In this way, they will never show their true characters, so the ruler will have no way to distinguish the qualities of his ministers. Because the king of Yue admired valor, many of his subjects looked on death lightly. Because King Ling of Chu liked slim waists, his state was full of people starving themselves. Because Duke Huan of Qi was jealous and loved his ladies in waiting, Shudiao castrated himself in order to be put in charge of the harem; because Duke Huan was fond of unusual food, Yiya steamed his son’s head and served it to him.
The voting public fears the leader who does as they wish. They call him (her?) a dictator, an authoritarian, worse than Fascism. That is, they fear that if they vote in someone who acts competently, with action, they will undermine their own ‘rule’. Pay attention too to the highlight sentence, as I think we can all attest to our current court castrating themselves (or their children) to garner favour with the ruler.
Follow the way of Heaven, reflect on the principle behind human affairs; investigate, examine, and compare these things, and when you come to the end, begin again. Be empty, quiet, and retiring; never put yourself forward. All the worries of the ruler come about because he tries to be like others. Trust others but never be like them, and then the myriad people will follow you as one man.
If there is one thing the current ruler is incapable of it’s not putting itself forward. All they want is to be like others.
Whether you move or remain still, transform all though inaction. If you show delight, your affairs will multiply; if you show hatred, resentment will be born. Therefore discard both delight and hatred and with an empty mind become the abode of the Way.
Already touched on, but this is essentially the teaching of Marcus Aurealis, to be Stoic is to rule with a level head.
The ruler is easily beguiled by lovely women and charming boys, by all those who can fawn and play at love. They wait for the time when he is enjoying his ease, take advantage of the moment when he is sated with food and wine, and ask for anything they desire, for they know that by this trick their requests are sure to be heeded. The minister's therefore ply them in the palace with gold and jewels and employ them to delude the ruler.
Bread and circuses, except for the king. Can we really deny that we are not distracted at every turn and this completely deludes us, the rulers, as to what is going on?
It is hazardous for the ruler of men to trust others, for he who trusts others will be controlled by others. Ministers have no bonds of flesh and blood which tie them to their ruler; it is only the force of circumstance which compels them to serve him.
Basically, DON’T trust the experts.
Those who have no understanding of government always tall you, "Never change old ways, never depart from established custom!" But the sage cares nothing about change or no change; his only concern is to rule properly. Whether or not he changes old ways, whether or not he departs from established customs depends solely upon whether such old ways and customs are effective or not.
This is an interesting one because the TRAD monarchist wants to go back, to RETVRN and that is simply not a valid response to turmoil. Ruling is not a matter of black and white, of return or progress. It is about dealing with what is in front of you with the tools available, and acting accordingly. Both extremes of left and right pull for the wrong reasons. Change for the sake of change is not progress either.
Hence, when men of ancient times made light of material goods, it was not because they were benevolent, but because there was a surplus of goods; and when men quarrel and snatch today, it is not because they are vicious, but because goods have grown scarce. When men lightly relinquish the position of Son of Heaven, it is not because they are high-minded, because the advantages of the post are slight; when men strive for sinecures in the government, it is not because they are base, but because the power they will acquire is great.
This is probably the passage in the whole book that most closely sums up the nature of power. It comes to down to haves and the have notes. Replace ‘ancient times’ with current. Everything we see around us is the result of incentives and greed. If a thing is scarce or in surplus, that is what tells us the most about how people will act.
Past and Present have different customs; new and old adopt different measures. To try to use the ways of a generous and lenient government to rule the people of a critical age is like trying to drive a runaway horse without using reins or whip.
While I make the analogy that the demos is the king, we are a king that makes rules for ourselves. So we are a critical people, and we urge our government to be soft on us. It is foolhardy.
In ancient times when Cangjie created the system of writing, he used the character for “private” to express the idea of self-centeredness, and combined the elements for “private” and “opposed to” to form the character for “public.” The fact that public and private are mutually opposed was already well understood at the time of Cang Jie. To regard the two as being identical in interest is a disaster which comes from lack of consideration.
I want to note the similarities to Carl Schmitt’s thinking here. Han Feizi makes the same point that public and private interests are vastly different.
Hence the interests of the state and the individual are mutually at odds, and both cannot prevail at the same time.
Perhaps our issue is that we as a people have decided to favour the interests of the state instead of our own. This may seem contradictory, but the cult of ‘niceness’ does not want equality, or feminism, or what have you for the individual, but as a state directive, for all.
Now in administering your rule and dealing with the people, if you do not speak in terms that any man and woman can plainly understand, but long to apply the doctrines of the wise men, then you will defeat your own efforts at rule. Subtle and mysterious words are no business of the people.
Here you see the influence of the academic on society, where we have charlatans selling books on anti-whiteness and ‘professors’ making judgement calls on gender inequality in the fire rescue service. Why the fuck does the average person have to know about their ‘privilege’ or the term ‘pansexual’? Academic nonsense.
An enlightened ruler will administer his state in such a way as to decrease the number of merchants, artisans, and other men who make their living by wandering from place to place, and will see to it that such men are looked down upon. In this way he lessens the number of people who abandon primary pursuits [i.e., agriculture] to take up secondary occupations.
Yes well I think we’re well past this stage.
In a strict household there are no unruly slaves, but the children of a kindly mother often turn out bad. From this I know that power and authority can prevent violence, but kindness and generosity are insufficient to put an end to disorder.
A quick putdown of ‘niceness’ and equity.
There is much else in the book and I recommend it for a little Chinese wisdom. One last thing I will say is about the Chinese style. Han Feizi draws upon endless historical examples to prove or make his points, and Chinese literature is built on historical metaphor. It’s a wealth of wisdom and knowledge, and the West severely lacks it. Today we either point to Hitler, fascism and the holocaust, or alternatively we turn to Stars Wars and Harry Potter. The discrepancy in the form is glaring.