Lately there has been a lot of talk and scathing obloquy about the nauseating and reputedly obsequious men and women who have, in the process of protecting their own political and financial career, effectively changed the face and substance of the Republican political party of the United States of America. The GOP (Grand Old Party) was at one time the home of choice for the conventionally minded predominantly white capitalist who has a position in society to inflate or perpetuate. Elon Musk is a member.
Elon Reeve Musk was born on June 28, 1971, in Pretoria, South Africa. He is of British and Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry. His mother, Maye Musk (née Haldeman), is a model and dietitian born in Saskatchewan, Canada, and raised in South Africa. Musk emmigrated to Canada at age 18 acquiring citizenship through his Canadian-born mother. Two years later, he matriculated at Queen’s University at Kingston in Canada.
Now thanks to Trump the Republican Party has become a bastion of misstatement, ludicrous legal arguments, racism, narrow-minded and utterly preposterous religious beliefs and irrelevancy sufficient to entertain a noticeably weary, poorly educated, disgruntled, vengeful populace – Oh, and plus those who profit from the poor and tax reform for the rich. There might further be an acceptable argument that a portion of the American population prefers to Make America Great Again (that is, go back to the good old days) for fear of losing more ground perceived to be wrought by changing demographics. For many, change is not good.
“The Homily on Wilful Rebellion, a discourse which inculcates, in unmeasured terms, the duty of obeying rulers, speaks of none but actual rulers. Nay, the people are distinctly told in that Homily that they are bound to obey, not only their legitimate prince, but any usurper whom God shall in anger set over them for their sins. And surely it would be the height of absurdity to say that we must accept submissively such usurpers as God sends in anger, but must pertinaciously withhold our obedience from usurpers whom He sends in mercy. Grant that it was a crime to invite the Prince of Orange over, a crime to join him, a crime to make him King; yet what was the whole history of the Jewish nation and of the Christian Church but a record of cases in which Providence had brought good out of evil? And what theologian would assert that, in such cases, we ought, from abhorrence of the evil, to reject the good?”
Excerpt From
The History of England, from the Accession of James II — Volume 3
Thomas Babington Macaulay
Nonjuror |noun | a member of the English clergy who refused to take the oath of allegiance to William and Mary in 1689
And just to be clear the entire composition of the argument was about whether protestantism or catholicism were best for the government of the country. Even advancing the plausible issue of divine right, the question quickly descends to a practical assessment of business rather than some pie-in-the-sky synopsis.
In European Christianity, the divine right of kings, divine right, or God’s mandation, is a political and religious doctrine of political legitimacy of a monarchy. It is also known as the divine-right theory of kingship.
The doctrine asserts that a monarch is not accountable to any earthly authority (such as a parliament or the Pope) because their right to rule is derived from divine authority. Thus, the monarch is not subject to the will of the people, of the aristocracy, or of any other estate of the realm. It follows that only divine authority can judge a monarch, and that any attempt to depose, dethrone, resist or restrict their powers runs contrary to God’s will and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It does not imply that their power is absolute.
It is sometimes signified by the phrase “by the Grace of God” or its Latin equivalent, Dei Gratia, which has historically been attached to the titles of certain reigning monarchs. Note, however, that such accountability only to God does not per se make the monarch a sacred king.
Though I do not for a minute think Trump has any knowledge of the meaning of the divine right of kings, he is vulgar enough notwithstanding his irreligious behaviour to recognize the dominance of the clergy over its flock of sheep. His latest episode appears to have enhanced his submissive strains. And aided by the fortuity of his survival from the recent assassination attempt (hunting accident) he no doubt envisions his outcome as a message from whomever is hidden behind the scenery of the Yellow Brick Road. To be fair I doubt he’d pretend to dignify his brushes with morality as anything approaching the mystical realm of philosophy or thought. His domaine is purely the dressing room and the stage. It is a conclusion as obvious to him as surpassing the privilege of being a Nonjuror. It’s only about advancing one’s own gain; and, besides, how effectual are those people in the higher orders of society, monotonously pushing the wheels of bureaucracy. It makes far more sense to be “cooperative” (unctuous sounds so dreadful).
And when you think of it, how many things are there about which we have absolute certainty? Perhaps change of power (whose ever it is) is just plain good sense. It freshens the background. It only succeeds to damage and hurt to argue about what is right. Who am I to say? Or you? Or anyone? The world should be governed in the same manner as the animal kingdom; that is, by strength and success alone. And sometimes age. Age is a big thing but normally that reflects itself in strength and success so the result is the same. As for the confusing business of reason or logic, that only contaminates an already evolutionary process.
It won’t in any event be long before the actors tire of the performance; and, it hardly bears mention that the greedy little voters will opt instead for the oligarchy of their betters, people who have nothing better to do than govern. They want it, let them have it! Uncertainty is the fodder of inactivity. And it really cannot be a matter of scruples which leads the day! Let the best man win!