Emperor, Hostage, Despot!

Nationalist Power Dreams of Empire

My exploration of major European ideological shifts began with Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, which illuminated the transition from sovereign power to institutional control, offering a framework for understanding modern mechanisms of governance. This was complemented by Hannah Arendt’s On Revolution, which dissected the complexities of political revolutions and the challenges of establishing lasting freedom and Robert Owen Paxton’s The Anatomy of Fascism, which revealed how societal conditions and manipulated sentiment can foster extremist ideologies. Underpinning my views is a a sort of techno determinism, influenced by Marshall McLuhan’s The Medium Is the Massage, which reshaped my understanding of how communication technologies shape perception and behavior, a perspective further enriched by studies like Being and the Screen and timelines such as The Evolutions of Traditional to New Media. Finally, Robert Sapolsky’s Behave provided a biological and environmental lens for understanding human behavior, tying together the interplay of power, perception, and ideology that continues to shape our world. All lead me to believe:

  • 16th-century ideology to today in Europe/US/Australia/Canada (I may refer to as EUSAC) should be interpreted anthropologically. Think rise of material standards because colonialism as opposed to some historical determinism set out by Fukuyama.

  • pre-revolution and post-revolution France, Russia, and the US were concerned with centralized power.

  • Fascism is a conservative brain phenomenon in societies that are stressed and can be identified by

    • homogenous identities
    • the need for “an enemy”
    • populist leaders
    • wealthy conservative elite

Very much today’s worst case in the US... In March Jeff Sharlet, Vanity Fair contributing editor, tweeted that the “intellectual New Right is a white supremacist project designed to cultivate non-white support,” and he linked it to resurgent nationalist and authoritarian politics around the world: “It’s part of a global fascist movement not limited to the anti-blackness of the U.S. & Europe.” — James Pogue,

We Crave Daddy. Own Us Daddy. Be a Despot!

During a recent road trip, I listened to the revolutions podcast. The whole thing. What stood out through 17th-19th era of revolution was Napoleon Bonaparte, an accomplished Corsican general of the middle class who rose to become an emperor for a short while. Like a hundred days. I had always shit on France for having a revolution just to restore a king. And you know, wildly decapitating people.

And I use to think, yeah, the state monopolizes power so of course a king may be convenient. But no. Kings are disposed often. Like in the Northman movie. Bro really left his wife and child for honor? This y'all power fantasy?

I also wonder if Napoleon’s success could be seen as a triumph of the liberal policies France introduced through revolution. More puzzling about the restoration of the monarchy was that the French revolution was directly concerned with figures like Napoleon rising to power. Who held the authority to tax citizens and build armies *competently* was the main catalyst for the revolution. The rights of the three estates had all been radically altered to more generally suit the French population’s needs in the midst of an economic crisis. And though members of the council watched Napolean's rise with extreme scrupulousness(while trying not to be killed), the people chose him to represent them. At least until the forces of a united Europe brought about a good chance for french liberals to dethrone Napolean. His heir nonetheless still has a claim to this day.

Hostages to Nationalist Power Fantasies of Daddy Owning Us

Zizek describes monarchs as having the appearance of rule. These figures are unfortunately tasked with bearing the burden of the masses as well as their own greed. He says these figures are at their best in their himbo-bimbo era. Motivated monarchs should be feared. Is it possible cult-like leaders are the only egomaniacs who would take on the task of fronting civilization building? I doubt that, but we love them.

This thought keeps me up at night. There is no singular authority. Most often, whatever whims can be met by a state as transmitted through some society. I know, I learned a lesson Foucault reiterates over and over. Power and knowledge are capricious constants bubble from below. I suppose the upside is we can construct institutions such that the wildest threat to them is absorbed. These threats should make the future of human organizations a bit more of an object to reason about. Fascinating it is for anyone to become emperor; more fascinating is to create a society in which emperors get wrecked. I now have a new belief:

  • Hierarchical leaders may or may not be corrupt but their power is being the foreign relations person for the group. It is valuable to have a monarch as a group pathologizes its place in the world.