Adam Wielomski: Empire rationis

I do not hide, and I never hide that I am standing in the position that Polish conservative liberals powerfully exaggerate their reluctance to the institutions of the state. Of course, I realize the reluctance to overgrowth of this institution erstwhile its growth becomes a goal in itself and for itself. However, unfortunately, this frequently turns into a kind of "state-phobia". I've just prepared my latest book. The empire of rationis. Sovereign State in the Western political thought of the 16th and 17th centuries.

The book consists of respective of my technological publications, concerning the problem of state and power in the 16th and 17th centuries, concerning the thoughts of Vitoria, Machiavelli, Bodin, Botero, Suareza, Bellarmino, Luther, Calvin, Hobbes, Spinozy and many insignificant authors. Although they were published as separate texts, I wrote them reasoning that 1 day a book would be created from them, so I wrote them so that they would make a logical full to describe the title Imperium rationis. I borrowed this word from Carl Schmitt, and this word from Hegel, to describe the “reasonable state” which developed at the beginning of the era called Modernity. What do I mean by "reasonable state"?

Whether we like it or not, global relations are like the jungle. They are governed by global law (in an age of interest: legal customs), but it is simply a state of anarchy erstwhile there is neither justice nor executive power in them. specified power only arises if 1 of the powers is active in the substance and unless judgement concerns a superpower. Generally, the powers are in global relations absolutely unpunished. This fact was peculiarly well understood in Europe during the period of the 16th and 17th centuries, erstwhile all the centres of universal power fell apart or weakened. The Reformation blew up the remnants of imperial power in the Reich, as the emperors advocated Catholicism as well as papal power. The states plunged into civilian wars on a confederate basis. Europe is in gigantic chaos. In this situation, a strong state was necessary, absolutely necessary, to save individual nations from civilian war and to let individual political communities to last internationally. To be brutal, there was no place for liberalism in early Modernity. It is as if in the 20th century, during large ideological struggles, individual preached "tolerance" for the communist or Nazi revolution and wanted to "dialogue" about peace with Stalin or Hitler.

That is why a sovereign state was born and strengthened in early Modernity. How do you specify them? The modern state is simply a legal and organization instrument for carrying out the selfish interests of a given political, national and confessive community in the jungle characterising global relations and the situation of the Confessive Revolution. Under the conditions of the time, it was not any "bureaucratic growth" in the nations, but a essential means to fight for survival. Hence, the literature of the era so powerfully focused on the issue of the state's rations, seeking the expression of the "reasonable state". A strong and sovereign state was then essential to survive, as we ourselves experienced in the 17th century, erstwhile the weak and deprived of a strong country of the Republic became a place of invasion from all sides, resulting in its citizens being destroyed by about 1/3. A akin simplification in the population was noted by the divided and divided Reich. Those who built then strong states lost quite a few soldiers and money, but did not announcement a population decline and did not become a battlefield. That was the climate then.

Of course, as happens between people, political fanatics and tyrants besides appeared, who tried to take over sovereign states and usage them for their purposes. They were tyrants (normal things) and Calvinists (political fanatics). Realistically, the reformation was linked to tyranny, as Protestantization of the state meant a break by a sovereign with the alleged conventional constitution and moral restrictions resulting from religion. Hence, the problem of tyranny, tyranny, and final rebellion was constantly fought in modern thought. Paradoxically, he was most curious in Jesuits and Calvinists. The Jesuits wrote against tyrants who change confessions and force specified conversions of their subjects, and Calvins against tyrants who refuse conversions and do not let Calvins to form a rebel organization that would in future overthrow Catholic rulers.

Thus, in the thought of early Modernity we find specified a line of thought: reformation → absolutism (for defence against it or its introduction) → the right to resistance. This strategy was the same in the 20th century: ideology → dictatorship (for defence against it or its introduction) → right to resistance. With the ideology of climateism, genderism and “lawfulness” in the European Union, it will be the same. We will have gender-climate dictatorships and “reactive” dictatorships to save nations from this scourge. Nihil novi sub saltsBecause that is human nature and we will not change it. If you want to realize this strategy better, delight read my book The empire of rationis.

Adam Wielomski

Adam Wielomski, The empire of rationis. Sovereign State in the Western political thought of the 16th and 17th centuries, Wydawnictwo: Pro Vita Bon Foundation and Wydawnictwo von Borowiecky, Radzymin-Warsaw 2024, 498 pages.