These chucklefucks keep getting this part so wrong. No dictator stays benevolent for long.
Not just that, the implication here is that “benevolence” is objective, which is a fundamentally religious point of view. But in the real world, one man’s benevolent dictator would be another man’s tyrant.
But even in the liturgical sense of benevolence, schism is a thing, and often enough that we literally made the word schism for that and everyone else just adopted it to means a break of different ideas that used to be one.
So even those of the same religion have over time turned on each other. There’s just been no successful consolidation of organized power under a single person or dictum that stayed free of eventually violence to it’s own members. Power always thirsts more power. That’s been all of history.
Not just that, the implication here is that “benevolence” is objective, which is a fundamentally religious point of view. But in the real world, one man’s benevolent dictator would be another man’s tyrant.
But even in the liturgical sense of benevolence, schism is a thing, and often enough that we literally made the word schism for that and everyone else just adopted it to means a break of different ideas that used to be one.
So even those of the same religion have over time turned on each other. There’s just been no successful consolidation of organized power under a single person or dictum that stayed free of eventually violence to it’s own members. Power always thirsts more power. That’s been all of history.