حَدَّثَنَا مُسَدَّدٌ، حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي نَافِعٌ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم. وَحَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ صَبَّاحٍ، حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ زَكَرِيَّاءَ، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ " السَّمْعُ وَالطَّاعَةُ حَقٌّ، مَا لَمْ يُؤْمَرْ بِالْمَعْصِيَةِ، فَإِذَا أُمِرَ بِمَعْصِيَةٍ فَلاَ سَمْعَ وَلاَ طَاعَةَ ".
Narrated Ibn `Umar: The 'Prophet said, "It is obligatory for one to listen to and obey (the ruler's orders) unless these orders involve one disobedience (to Allah); but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed, he should not listen to or obey it."
"The People" in either mandate, Heavenly or Popular, is not some abstract undifferentiated mass, but that body of armed men who instantiate and enforce the will of the Mandated rule-giver in either case.
If you lose the spear carriers, you have lost your rule.
The mandate of the people is, in the final analysis, downstream from the mandate of heaven. Two brief examples to illustrate:
1) You mentioned the Enlightenment revolutions founded upon the "mandate of the people." Tocqueville's analysis of the French Revolution is that the revolution sprang from the fact that the responsibilities of the nobility had diverged too much from the privileges of the nobility. On the eve of the revolution, the civil service bureaucrats were already do the work of running the country -- the revolution was the force that enacted the full and formal replacement of the Old Regime by the bourgeoise.
2) As more contemporary example, notice the change in motivation of the average Trump voter in 2016 vs 2020 vs 2024. The careful reader will notice profound differences in the relationship between that person and the Global American Empire Regime. My guess is that most of those people would indicate COVID + Floyd Riots as a turning point in their perspectives. I don't think it is coincidental that a majority of the ruling class wants to bury the whole COVID era history in some sort of general "amnesty." What does a desire for amnesty say about the confidence of the talented people who are still needed to operate the civil service that has claimed the right to rule over us?
As Yarvin writes:
"A monarch cannot be a true and absolute monarch, full master of the state, without (a) unshakable will to rule, and (b) total confidence in ability to rule. Any glitch in will or confidence can turn any monarch into a headless body, or a royal celebrity—equally irreversible conditions."
Good essay. I point out that since the first empire of China (the Qin 226 BC) the Chinese state has undergone more successful revolutions than Europe. The average Chinese government (dynasty) lasts about 270 years & is then replaced by revolt or conquest. European states last significantly longer, 400 to 500 years is my rough estimation. As you wrote, The Mandate of Heaven doctrine fully justifies revolt against an unworthy government.
"The managing that the global managerial regime does is the managing of consent."
Brilliant insight. Exactly! This is the object of the game. It's why we all feel angry and dissatisfied, yet don't know who to blame.
It's my theory that the ruling elite (not the managerial elite who work for them) want to return us to a type of feudal, hierarchical society with them in charge. However, they want to exempt themselves from any type of mandate, heavenly or popular. To do this they remain secretive and rule in the background. They use political puppets to deflect accountability from themselves using the bureaucratic elite to manage it all. As you noted, revolution is more difficult against a popular mandate regime than against a heavenly mandate regime. But I propose that a regime hiding behind a popular mandate as a front is extremely hard to remove through popular opposition, mainly because the populis has no real idea who to rebel against. This is easy to see in society today, where politicians and political parties are blamed for our woes, but who receive their instructions from the ruling elite through bureaucratic intermediaries. The ruling elite are mostly unknown, and identifying them results in denial from the more public elites, or charges of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories when the more secretive elite are implicated. Right now, it seems to be an effective structure for them, using the bureaucratic "blob" to manipulate and insulate themselves from criticism and revolution.
A revolution does not have to be justified ahead of time -- it simply has to be successful. Put the new boss on the throne or in the presidency and a suitable justification will follow.
Mandate of Heaven versus Mandate of the People ducks the major point -- mandate to do what? Did the US Political Class have a mandate from the US People to instigate a civil war in the Ukraine, knowing that would trigger a broader war with Russia? Even when there is a clear mandate from the people, such as in the case of Catalonians voting for independence from Spain, the Ruling Class can & does choose to ignore it.
More important than the source of the Mandate is what that Mandate allows the Ruling Class to do. Sadly, few of the fallible human beings who end up as rulers remember the old maxim -- He rules best who rules least.
Given how most government action at the upper levels is disconnected from any popular vote, there is no claim to a mandate of the people. Given all the backroom deals and log rolling, the difference between what a lawmaker says he is for and what he is actually doing is difficult to discern.
And voting districts are so large that donors have more clout than voters.
-----
With all that said, it is possible to overthrow the government without changing the system. That is, overthrow the shadow government: the bigger Wall St. investment banks, the party structure of either major party, the TV networks, etc.
The beauty of democracy, or simulations thereof, is that it is possible to overthrow a bad government without resort to violence.
The problem with this analysis is that in many ways the Chinese Mandate of Heaven is more similar to the Mandate of the People than the old European Divine Right of Kings is to either.
The Mandate of Heaven seems rather distinct from thr Consent of the Governed and Divine Right of Kings. Divine Right/CoG are justifications with a moral imperative attached, the Mandate seems more fatalist. If a usurper acts without Divine Right/CoG he is acting unjustly, but he might still retain power. If a dynasty loses the Mandate, they WILL lose power, the revolution and civil wars merely reveal who now has received the Mandate.
"The mandate of heaven is the principle that the authority of a state and its government is created and sustained by divine support for a virtuous ruler."
" King" Henry VIII also declared this right. And he was nucknig futs! Therefore so are all who commands ultimate powers over people, regardless of inheritance by any law, order or mandate.
The mandate of the people is not a theory. There's plenty of deposed and executed former rulers testify to that.
But it is primarily negative. Nobody believes a politician who claims to have the mandate of the people are his positive right to rule. Similarly, not many believe any ruler who claims th emandate of heaven, either. Partly because few believe in heaven, partly because fewer believe politicians.
But when enough people get negative enough to do something serious about ousting the current ruler, then his government falls.
Not all things, and not necessarily the most important things, are symmetrical.
Good summary but you seemed to have papered over the theories of resistance of the 16th century religious wars. Particularly, the right to resistance through the lesser magistrates.
حَدَّثَنَا مُسَدَّدٌ، حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي نَافِعٌ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم. وَحَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ صَبَّاحٍ، حَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ بْنُ زَكَرِيَّاءَ، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، عَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ " السَّمْعُ وَالطَّاعَةُ حَقٌّ، مَا لَمْ يُؤْمَرْ بِالْمَعْصِيَةِ، فَإِذَا أُمِرَ بِمَعْصِيَةٍ فَلاَ سَمْعَ وَلاَ طَاعَةَ ".
Narrated Ibn `Umar: The 'Prophet said, "It is obligatory for one to listen to and obey (the ruler's orders) unless these orders involve one disobedience (to Allah); but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed, he should not listen to or obey it."
Sahih al-Bukhari 2955
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2955
"The People" in either mandate, Heavenly or Popular, is not some abstract undifferentiated mass, but that body of armed men who instantiate and enforce the will of the Mandated rule-giver in either case.
If you lose the spear carriers, you have lost your rule.
Our present rulers have the Mandate of Satan.
The mandate of the people is, in the final analysis, downstream from the mandate of heaven. Two brief examples to illustrate:
1) You mentioned the Enlightenment revolutions founded upon the "mandate of the people." Tocqueville's analysis of the French Revolution is that the revolution sprang from the fact that the responsibilities of the nobility had diverged too much from the privileges of the nobility. On the eve of the revolution, the civil service bureaucrats were already do the work of running the country -- the revolution was the force that enacted the full and formal replacement of the Old Regime by the bourgeoise.
2) As more contemporary example, notice the change in motivation of the average Trump voter in 2016 vs 2020 vs 2024. The careful reader will notice profound differences in the relationship between that person and the Global American Empire Regime. My guess is that most of those people would indicate COVID + Floyd Riots as a turning point in their perspectives. I don't think it is coincidental that a majority of the ruling class wants to bury the whole COVID era history in some sort of general "amnesty." What does a desire for amnesty say about the confidence of the talented people who are still needed to operate the civil service that has claimed the right to rule over us?
As Yarvin writes:
"A monarch cannot be a true and absolute monarch, full master of the state, without (a) unshakable will to rule, and (b) total confidence in ability to rule. Any glitch in will or confidence can turn any monarch into a headless body, or a royal celebrity—equally irreversible conditions."
Good essay. I point out that since the first empire of China (the Qin 226 BC) the Chinese state has undergone more successful revolutions than Europe. The average Chinese government (dynasty) lasts about 270 years & is then replaced by revolt or conquest. European states last significantly longer, 400 to 500 years is my rough estimation. As you wrote, The Mandate of Heaven doctrine fully justifies revolt against an unworthy government.
For those more knowledgeable in history, a question:
When did peaceful resistance work to overthrow or alter a non-Christian authority?
Just curious if any other faith/ideological regimes ever let go of power because the people said their feelings were hurt.
General Ripper was right.
https://youtu.be/N1KvgtEnABY
"The managing that the global managerial regime does is the managing of consent."
Brilliant insight. Exactly! This is the object of the game. It's why we all feel angry and dissatisfied, yet don't know who to blame.
It's my theory that the ruling elite (not the managerial elite who work for them) want to return us to a type of feudal, hierarchical society with them in charge. However, they want to exempt themselves from any type of mandate, heavenly or popular. To do this they remain secretive and rule in the background. They use political puppets to deflect accountability from themselves using the bureaucratic elite to manage it all. As you noted, revolution is more difficult against a popular mandate regime than against a heavenly mandate regime. But I propose that a regime hiding behind a popular mandate as a front is extremely hard to remove through popular opposition, mainly because the populis has no real idea who to rebel against. This is easy to see in society today, where politicians and political parties are blamed for our woes, but who receive their instructions from the ruling elite through bureaucratic intermediaries. The ruling elite are mostly unknown, and identifying them results in denial from the more public elites, or charges of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories when the more secretive elite are implicated. Right now, it seems to be an effective structure for them, using the bureaucratic "blob" to manipulate and insulate themselves from criticism and revolution.
A revolution does not have to be justified ahead of time -- it simply has to be successful. Put the new boss on the throne or in the presidency and a suitable justification will follow.
Mandate of Heaven versus Mandate of the People ducks the major point -- mandate to do what? Did the US Political Class have a mandate from the US People to instigate a civil war in the Ukraine, knowing that would trigger a broader war with Russia? Even when there is a clear mandate from the people, such as in the case of Catalonians voting for independence from Spain, the Ruling Class can & does choose to ignore it.
More important than the source of the Mandate is what that Mandate allows the Ruling Class to do. Sadly, few of the fallible human beings who end up as rulers remember the old maxim -- He rules best who rules least.
Given how most government action at the upper levels is disconnected from any popular vote, there is no claim to a mandate of the people. Given all the backroom deals and log rolling, the difference between what a lawmaker says he is for and what he is actually doing is difficult to discern.
And voting districts are so large that donors have more clout than voters.
-----
With all that said, it is possible to overthrow the government without changing the system. That is, overthrow the shadow government: the bigger Wall St. investment banks, the party structure of either major party, the TV networks, etc.
The beauty of democracy, or simulations thereof, is that it is possible to overthrow a bad government without resort to violence.
The problem with this analysis is that in many ways the Chinese Mandate of Heaven is more similar to the Mandate of the People than the old European Divine Right of Kings is to either.
By this axe.
The Mandate of Heaven seems rather distinct from thr Consent of the Governed and Divine Right of Kings. Divine Right/CoG are justifications with a moral imperative attached, the Mandate seems more fatalist. If a usurper acts without Divine Right/CoG he is acting unjustly, but he might still retain power. If a dynasty loses the Mandate, they WILL lose power, the revolution and civil wars merely reveal who now has received the Mandate.
"The mandate of heaven is the principle that the authority of a state and its government is created and sustained by divine support for a virtuous ruler."
" King" Henry VIII also declared this right. And he was nucknig futs! Therefore so are all who commands ultimate powers over people, regardless of inheritance by any law, order or mandate.
The mandate of the people is not a theory. There's plenty of deposed and executed former rulers testify to that.
But it is primarily negative. Nobody believes a politician who claims to have the mandate of the people are his positive right to rule. Similarly, not many believe any ruler who claims th emandate of heaven, either. Partly because few believe in heaven, partly because fewer believe politicians.
But when enough people get negative enough to do something serious about ousting the current ruler, then his government falls.
Not all things, and not necessarily the most important things, are symmetrical.
Good summary but you seemed to have papered over the theories of resistance of the 16th century religious wars. Particularly, the right to resistance through the lesser magistrates.