When Intellect Flirted with Power
Image of Nimrod
Nimrod: Darkness In The Cradle Of Civilization
The Emergence of Tyrrany
The emergence of history as such is, and yet is not, the hallmark of civil society. It is the eruption of civil society that opens a window for the historicization of power and rulership. The systematic arrangements of social practices that ultimately function as the frame for the birth of reigning powers is what lead to the subjugation of individuals and entire civilizations.
This emergence of tyranny dates back to ancient times. It may be safe to say, it was the dual emergence of pride and entrepreneurship what elucidated the engendering of such ideological undertakings and it is plausible that it was the desire for capitalist supremacy what pointed towards the legitimation of nobility.This force gained momentum when societies began to live in close proximity to one another and the competition for land and other commodities surfaced. The sudden asphyxiation for material possessions thrusts civil society to participate in the invention of rank-placement conundrums that with the passage of time inevitably give birth to system of governments. The persuasive treatment of this ancient philosophy was in time globally applied because the poetry of human pride is quite influential, and integral, to the establishment of supremacy.
It is in the chewing of these raw nuggets of world history that we come across the chronicles of an ancient man by the name of Nimrod as he makes a chilling entry into the pages of history. Capitalizing on small-group cultures that may have been, or not been, unsatisfied with their lot in life, this “mighty hunter” as the bible coins him, was in opposition to God, and indubitably exploits a concoction of rhetoric discourse and dauntingness to hard-press his fellowman into what would turn out to be one of the most brazen ventures ever recorded in religious history--the building of the tower of Babel. A study of the book of Genesis, along with extra biblical traditions, proposes that this man by hook or by crook, forged rulership over the towns of Babel, Erech (Babylonian Uruk), Akkad and Mesopotamia. Nimrod’s daring posture therefore provides us with a provisional lens for the in-depth analysis of archaic control and tyranny.
Life in antiquity was long dominated by difficulties in many different spheres of life. Victuals was scarce and survival dependent on the stakes of countless involute factors. Thus, the obfuscation of our forebears most certainly was what gave birth to the impression that a ruling class must subsist to secure order and obviate anarchy. Under such pretenses, men arose to declare the tenets of bureaucracy an "enlightened rationalism". Unquestionably, the fragmentation of society was the spark that ignited the emergence of a chain of command. This is rigorously congruent with humanity’s desire for order and security. The ideology was seized with a tenacity that it became dreadfully dogmatic and orthodox in its proliferation, and the subjugation of individuals under one ruling class became, more than idyllic, a force not to be reckoned with. As writing systems appeared, giving birth to literacy, an incipient era of gregarious expansion commenced and the phenomenalism of literary canon adscititiously empowered those who by the refining process of semantics were able to supersede over their less cultured contemporaries.
Ancient history is permeated with archives of sudden incursions and truculent sackings from within and without community boundaries. It is in this atmosphere that Mesopotamia, kenned as the crib of civilization, accommodate as laboratory the dubious experimentations on human suppression effected by tribal warlords like Nimrod, and those who followed on his trail. Hence, man’s ascendance into sovereignty with the successive abuse of power that conventionally tags along marginal positions of this sort, may be suggested to be the by-product of the iniquities of human anthropocentricity, and by virtue, the undercurrent that steered mankind in the path to regime.
By 2000 BCE, an ancient King by the name of Hammurabi ruled in Mesopotamia. He was the first tsar to draw up the first recorded empirical code of laws. These laws forefended individuals from malefactions committed against them by other community members, but not from the more preponderant evils anon to befall society through obligatory protectorates. The vices of pride, became a revolutionary force, proselytizing while at the same degree subjugating mankind in a fashion disproportionate in its cleverness.
However, the anthropology of nobility is in authenticity quite hypocritical in its politics. Hierarchies always existed within the family unit. The alpha male dominated over the rest of the clan, whose role was to dutifully collaborate in religious, agricultural and domestic undertakings, making the business of survival a true-life enterprise. Accordingly every tribal family unit, was an empire in its own right. The internal structure of the archaic family unit encompassed and sustained autonomous selfhood. This familial codependency was marginally simpleminded if we take in account that human beings thrived on its tenures for thousands of years. Had everyone back then perpetuate to attend to the quandaries of their own web, and had not astuteness ever flirted with puissance, life would be today an intranet of tranquility-driven families devising their own agendas, attending to life in docile fashion, answering only to God, their families and themselves. To all appearances, however, this idealistic contemplation proved too extravagantly simplistic for the pathological musings of our ancestors.