Plato Emerges as the Leader Once More, But Without All the Spirituality...
The Industrial part of the Industrial Revolution is fairly straightforward, but the Revolution side of the IR isn’t as easy to fathom. There were well over 100 revolutions and rebellions between 1700 and 1900, and the 1780s to 1849 had so many revolutions it was called, “The Age of Revolution.”
It wasn’t just a period of rebellion to control government, it was also an age of rebellion against the ideas that held Western culture together. The ideas of whether one type of government was best, whether one type of economic system was best, whether one type of art was best, whether one type of electricity was best, and not last and certainly not least, whether any religion at all was best. Everything was being called into question in the name of progress, and all of these radical ideas were calling for action.
Since we have been concentrating on ideas from our four Greek philosophers, there was one particular idea Plato that found a permanent home. Plato’s Republic posited the most ideal form of government was ruled by a single autocrat aided by legions of helpers (Plato called them “auxiliaries,” we would call them bureaucrats) who would be in absolute control of what education individuals received, what job they were given, who they married, whether they were allowed to have children, whether their children would be allowed to live (the genetically inferior would be put to death), parents would be prevented from even knowing who their children were because offspring were wards of the state, and these children would stay in the caste in which they were born unless there were very unusual circumstances. No one would own anything, they would be provided for and overseen by the government, and all would dwell peacefully under the benevolent leadership of their ruler, who at times for the common good is free to lie to those he leads in order to get them to do what he wishes.
If any of this sounds familiar, it was revived by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the early 1700s and expounded upon by Karl Marx in the 1800s. It is espoused today by the World Economic Forum, founded by Klaus Schwab, and it has never worked anywhere it has been tried due to the sinful nature of man. The sinful nature of man, however, is denied by Plato, Rousseau, Robespierre, Marx, Klaus Schwab, and everyone who follows this model as being idyllic. They are convinced errors previously made were committed by the genetically inferior or ill-educated, but they are more evolved and would rule perfectly.
• Plato (c.429-c.347bc)
Plato’s Republic is the source of today’s socialism and has been the source for those who believe themselves to be superior for thousands of years. Plato thought the problem with those who ruled in his day was that they were not philosophers, they were not seeking a higher calling as he was. Rulers should be philosophers, thinkers, meditators on elements not of this world, which would make them more interested in doing the right thing in the name of the collective.
Plato was convinced that education was the answer to man’s problems of not getting along. Man was not basically evil, it was a matter of impure education. If only the State could mandate how children were educated, all disputes would be solved because these carefully educated children would come to see the State's way of doing things was more reasonable. Mankind would also become progressively more genetically pure because of selective breeding (Plato didn’t know about genetics, but was familiar with the concept of breeding).
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
Rousseau was seen by his early contemporaries as an off-beat, strange man, but he insisted that no one should own property and lived as though that were true. He regularly camped on large land-owner’s property and did his best to fly in the face of what was considered proper. He, like Plato, believed that education was key, but his take was that the purity of a child’s mind was such that improper education corrupted children and simplicity would enhance them. It is similar (and only similar) to Plato’s idea that the human soul was a celestial being (literal stars), and that they were cast into the material realm for sins of pride or other such things. Their first arrival into the material realm would then be their purest state, and only by the corruption of the material realm would they fall further into sin. Reason alone could free them. Rousseau was thus part of the Enlightenment era, and wrote On the Social Contract (1762).
• The French Jacobins(1792-1794)
The Jacobins of the French Revolution were inspired by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and it was not coincidence that they named their newly founded government “The Republic” following the revolution. Reason, Plato’s highest order, was to be honored and all else torn down, but contrary to Plato, religion was thought to corrupt man’s reason. Thus, during the Reign of Terror church officials were attacked, churches and cathedrals were turned into “Temples of Reason” (you can still see plaques in France designating cathedrals as such to this day).
The Jacobins began as a group of concerned do-gooders, wishing to help the peasants and underclass in the distribution of food and medical aid. When they realized their task was too great for them alone, they began to approach the rich for assistance. Some gave and some didn’t. Some wealthy who had been giving finally refused to give more. When the Jacobin’s efforts to collect money proved insufficient, they became more demanding of the rich and when they achieved control of the government, they used the force of government to strengthen their demands. If the rich refused to contribute, their lands and wealth were confiscated and their lives were taken. It was for the good of the whole, individuals were not important.
• Maximilien de Robespierre (1758-1794)
Robespierre can be a bewildering figure to understand, as he oversaw the Reign of Terror in all its bloody execution. In his trial he was surprised by the outcry and proclaimed that he was only trying to do what was right. His was the place of Plato’s ruler as a philosopher and superior intellect. He considered himself a reasonable man and it was his duty to do what was best, even if it meant strong measures. When their efforts to restructure society began to faulter, Robespierre and his council were convinced it was because there was not unanimity of mind, and that if unanimity could not be achieved through peaceful means it must be achieved through force. The lines to the guillotine grew longer. It was when Robespierre began to question the loyalty of his own council that he was brought down.
• Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
Charles Darwin may not seem to fit in with all these revolutionaries, but he is more at home than you might think. Many revolutions to follow were based on the idea that man was evolving and therefore his social connections, his religious habits, and his government should be changing as well. The Progressive Movement of the late 1800s as well as that of today have in common with Communism the idea that government must change because man is evolving. Today's Progressivism also shares a cynicism for religion.
Darwin's move away from the Genesis account was reached in contrast to what was generally accepted at the time, and he struggled with how his theory would be perceived. Today's scientists acknowledge that he got many things wrong, but it was the door to moving away from a responsibility to God, as acknowledged by Richard C. Lewontin in his review of Carl Sagan's book (see "Billions and Billions of Demons.")
• Karl Heinrich Marx (1818-1883)
Karl Marx considered himself a philosopher, a man of superior intellect and thought. As such, he should be able to devote himself to his writing. Marx lived for years in poverty, not because he wasn’t educated, and not because he couldn’t find work, but because he felt work beneath him. Thus, leaned on his wealthy friend Friedrich Engels to provide for him, leaving his wife and children to fend for themselves. In the tradition of Plato, Marx saw the ideal government as one lead by a philosopher-ruler (such as himself), who devoted themselves to the good of the collective. Individuals were not as important as the collective, so uniformity of the masses was ideal but, like Plato, it would require those superior of mind to govern. No one should own property, and the state would own everything. Everyone would live in harmony for the good of the collective. Marriage should be abolished, as stated in the Communist Manifesto of 1848, and as soon as private property was abolished, marriage would dissolve.
Like Rousseau, Marx despised religion, and saw it as a subversive element not to be tolerated. Both felt Christianity was the ultimate danger.
• Klaus Martin Schwab (1938- )
Klaus Schwab is the German engineer and economist who founded the World Economic Forum, a collection of billionaires and government leaders from all over the world who aspire (and perhaps conspire) to lead the world toward “building back better.” Their version of this utopia is founded on elements of Plato combined with Karl Marx, Chairman Mao, and those who believe the power of corporations is the most efficient instrument of the state (such as Benito Mussolini). Very little public information is known about Schwab, and only by inference can assumptions be made about his true agenda in the Great Reset, where evidently the global State owns everything and everyone else owns nothing.
Plato minus the Spiritual Realm
Plato believed in a god who created, and that this god had absolute standards by which everyone should live. Those are called a priori, or pre-existing standards from outside of man, not originating from man. These standards would help mankind reach a higher plane. He believed that a philosopher, meditating on the spiritual realm and reaching for the higher spiritual realm and its absolutes would be able to work toward the collective good by seeing the truths found in the spiritual realm and acting on them. The great tragedy of Plato’s Republic as a model for human governance is that it is impossible to achieve without Divine intervention. Plato misjudged man. He thought man was basically good, and that if properly educated he could achieve this utopia, but he was wrong. The Bible says rather forcefully that just the opposite is true.
"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)
"For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person” (Mark 7:21-23).
"For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Romans 8:7).
"For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12).
Plato’s utopia is impossible to achieve on this earth. The saying, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” is not just a myth, it is our reality. The only king tutored by Plato as a prince, Dionysius II of Syracuse, became a despotic tyrant. Those who would obscure this reality suggest the prince was corrupt and just didn’t follow Plato’s teachings are not denying the truth of Scripture that it really is impossible for any human being to follow the law without the aid of God Himself. That’s what the entire book of Galatians is all about.
Given that reality, any world government based on the idea that the government will always work in the best interests of those whom it governs is not just a myth, but a lie. The Republic without any ruler but Jesus Himself on the throne will be dystopia, not utopia.
