Thoas criticizes Akhnaton:
"'Rather than fail in his love for all mankind, he let those men who loved him be hacked down and their wives and children be sold into slavery. Cities stood ablaze for want of the troops he could have sent. But no, he loved everyone and Aton forbade killing.'" (p. 139)
So Thoas agrees with Dominic Flandry's mentor, Max Abrams. See Pacifism And Reformism.
Abrams says that we have a duty to act and thus connects with SM Stirling's Athelstane King. See Krishna.
We find that Agatha Christie has inserted herself again. See Akhnaton.
That is enough for this evening but the connection between Thoas and Abrams was a good one.
2 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I agree with Thoas criticisms of Akhenaten, which seems to be borne out by what archeologists have unearthed since the Amarna period. A king's (or president, emperor, or PM) duty is to do what needs to be done to defend his people and state. Also, what Abrams said to Flandry in Chapter Eighteen of ENSIGN FLANDRY deserves to be quoted again: "You know," he said, "ever since Akhnaton ruled in Egypt, probably since before then, a school of thought has held we ought to lay down our weapons and rely on love. That, if love doesn't work, at least we'll die guiltless. Usually even its opponents have said this is a noble idea. I say it stinks. I say it's not just unrealistic, not just infantile, it's evil. It denies we have any duty to act in this life. Because how can we, if we let go of our capability?"
Responsible, "idealistic" leaders who refuse to act, to do what needs to be done, because whatever needs to be done is unpleasant or unpopular, are not being noble, they are betraying their duty and deserve only the curses of future generations.
I also agree with what Flandry said in Chapter XV of THE REBEL WORLDS to the would-be usurper McCormac: " 'Root'--radix--you radicals are all alike," Flandry said. "You think everything springs from one or two unique causes, and if only you can get at them, everything will automatically become paradisical. History doesn't go that way. Read some and see what the result of every resort to violence by reformists has been."
Idealists should never come to power because anger and frustration at the stubborn intractability of human beings, human nature, so easily make "idealists" or "reformists" become fanatical and cruel. As Stirling said in the combox for "Pacifism and Reformism" (9/23/2023) in this blog: "Yup, the French Revolution was worse--that's what happens when idealistic intellectuals with unrealistic expectations of human nature take over the government." Very few "intellectuals" are worth solid fecal matter in politics. The exceptions are almost always conservatives, men who are like Marcus Aurelius or Edmund Burke, with no delusions about human beings.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Even a low level Poul Anderson short story like "Son of the Sword" generates this amount of discussion.
Paul.
Post a Comment