Prologue.
Of course, I have already run around this ring 1,000,000 times and more, but I just am a glutton for moral debates, I suppose.
A Refutation of Marx 2
Michael Knowles received so much protest when he claimed "communists and libertarians are the same", and I contributed to the mockery, but I truly see what Mr. Knowles meant. Ontologically, both are materialistic, but their only distinction is the matter of material acquisition, whether it is via some dysfunctional communist revolution headed by a vanguard, with ensuing atrocities and repression, or shall the matter of material acquisition be determined by human nature unbound: the markets. The dialectical materialist view sees history as driven by material class struggle. The ultimate good is the equitable distribution of material goods. But why not hoard? why not destroy everyone who disagrees? Why do anything at all? Why not disrupt everything and engaging in this "Revolution of Me", if material acquisition is all which mattered? Who said equity or redistribution are moral imperatives? Why not murder and destruction? And on this matter, how does the Marxist know that Marxism is not just another false consciousness? If material acquisition is all that mattered, then perhaps the absolute death of everyone else, no matter who they are or their class, is the ultimate true consciousness, if one truly desires to elevate material so high. Both Marxism and Lockean ideas are materialistic in their nature, so who is right? Well, the communist states deprive others of material, while the more liberal states are abundant. However, my criticism of this pure liberalism is that it only works if the people are moral, otherwise you have markets for illicit pornography, narcotics, and otherwise, however the function of the free markets are unmatched, but otherwise must be moral to be truly sufficient. I mean it must be noted that primitive tribal peoples are not egalitarian across the board, even the most liberal, like the Hadza, are not blanket egalitarians, and themselves have culture, prestige leadership, and culture, like every other tribe. And so, it seems only logical that Marxism is merely another religion or ideology. I quite like the idea of this "Revolution of Me" as a sort of criticism of the Marxist Revolution. Essentially, the idea being that the lone individual is inspired, and sees material gain as all which is of his concern, but has no reason to care for anyone else, in fact, he feels so enlightened, that everyone else, no matter what, is a kulak, and so he begins his personal revolution in which he is destroying everything around him, robbing, looting, raping, and slaughtering in the exclusive pursuit of material. Is it not so that everyone in your class, or race, or otherwise is just your competition for material? Why should they matter as opposed to the individual? Who said they deserve the material which could be better subsumed into the hoard of the individual? And so, the Revolution of Me. I view this individual, alongside the True Tyrant, as both profoundly negative, although Max Stirner seems to feel the opposite.
Every war in history, no matter the type, revolution, or otherwise, has been one of ideas between sovereigns. Ideas of economy, ideology, and philosophy, all ultimately facilitated by morality and theology, whether directly like in the various jihads of the Umayyad Caliphate, or indirectly, like in Lenin's Russian Revolution, which was fought on the grounds of materialist ideas derived from the religion of the Bolsheviks: Marxism. The odd riot is mere noise, as is pop-culture, and every such inconsequentialities beyond tangential ability influence the sovereign head of these movements, or their ability to act as further propaganda. When there is material insufficiency, the dull many simply flee to other lands, or have a simple riot when the fear and angst is high, or do nothing at all, as the motion of history is in the sovereigns who head states, and movements, and enchant others. The dull many are readily enchanted. Even this notion of "material" is false, as the best means of attaining material conditions is via laissez-faire economics and mass business. And there is a great is-ought gap in reasoning on why material even matters as an imperative. If peace is the idea, then it is derived only in God at the paramount. Material conditions do not drive history, only ideas, which may include materialism as constituent, but otherwise, the foundation is some morality or philosophy. And most civilizations are complimentary and highly mutualistic, with exceptions, like the Kingdom of Dahomey, which revolved around slavery. Though especially feudalism in the High Middle Ages in Western Europe, which was a highly mutualistic affair of interdependency, as most civilizations are. Even the commoners are of great benefit, as their labor is often to their benefit, especially among civilizations which have embraced liberalized economies and competition. To assume, by "sovereign", this entails some kind of elite, per se, or at least an established elite, which is not the case. Someone like Wat Tyler could emerge, but ultimately is a sovereign. As for labor rights, civil rights, decolonization, they all have leaders in some regard, as someone must conceive of the idea first and lead it. "Taiping Rebellion, Haitian Revolution, and Indian Independence" It was all the work of sovereigns. In Haiti it was a Voodoo priest. In China it was a sole man who began the movement out of his religion. And in India, it was Congress.
To assume, by "sovereign", this entails some kind of elite, per se, or at least an established elite, which is not the case. Someone like Wat Tyler could emerge, but ultimately is a sovereign. As for labor rights, civil rights, decolonization, they all have leaders in some regard, as someone must conceive of the idea first and lead it. "Taiping Rebellion, Haitian Revolution, and Indian Independence" It was all the work of sovereigns. In Haiti it was a Voodoo priest. In China it was a sole man who began the movement out of his religion. And in India, it was Congress. And if material conditions, and attaining them, were all that mattered, per the Marxist, then why shouldn't the individual slaughter, torture, and destroy everything to attain all that he desires? Why not? Of course, the Marxist may disparage and speak of "brotherhood" or "collectives", but there is no answer as to "why?". Of course, in secularized free markets, there is a similar logic, which only substantiates my point that the free markets are moral in many regards, of being pacifist and respectful of property, but are only applicable when substantiated by God in their moral foundations, and practiced among a moral people.
"Even within “great man” theory, sovereigns are often constrained or pressured by mass movements, revolts, and economic shifts." Opposition by other sovereigns, of course. Sovereign, in this manner, is, by definition, Carlyle's hero, but expanded to be cruel as well, like Robert Mugabe or Vladimir Lenin, and not merely moral.
"Even if ultimate meaning comes only from God, could secular systems create local goods—like peace, health, or art—that, while not eternal, are still meaningful?" You are confused. There is meaning without God. Why is peace, health, or art good? Why not destroy them? Why is peace good? Why is civilization good? Why not die? Why should humanity exist? Why should the world exist? Not why "do" they exist... why "should" they exist? Why not destroy?
"While many systems have been functional, some—like caste or slavery—were brutal and dehumanizing. Can a theological framework still judge certain hierarchies as evil?" Why are these wrong? They are only wrong in God. Slavery is only wrong because all humans have the imago Dei, and are not readily reduced to property.
"You present a stark binary: either accept Christian theism, or embrace existential void. Yet many thinkers—Aristotle, Confucius, even the Stoics—developed complex ethical frameworks without a Christian God. They may lack eternal grounding, but they functioned as systems of virtue, order, and self-discipline. You don’t address how these systems sustained whole civilizations for centuries." I have implicitly addressed them. False systems that may contain divine truth, but are otherwise incomplete.
"While sovereigns play catalytic roles, your dismissal of mass consciousness underestimates how deeply culture, myth, and economic structure precondition the actions of sovereigns themselves. Take the French or Haitian Revolutions: yes, leaders mattered—but without years of hunger, taxation, religious discontent, etc., they’d have led nothing. Culture forms sovereigns too." I have never doubted that. I don't concern myself with the rise of the sovereign, only that he exists, and that the many are dull.
"You rightly argue that materialism cannot provide a moral imperative by itself. But the claim that it is "false" or secondary dismisses how physical needs shape historical events: famine, disease, environmental collapse, and technology have routinely altered the course of empires. Ideas operate through the medium of matter. Even revelation occurs in time, to flesh-and-blood beings." It comes down to sovereigns, strategy, et cetera. There is still idea behind it all, and the sovereign is preserved.
"You assume Christianity as the moral truth axiomatically. But the Muslim or Hindu could make a parallel claim that “all truth is Allah’s” or “all dharma descends from Brahman.” Why should Christianity be privileged over these? Your argument appeals to internal consistency—but doesn't fully engage with external criteria of truth or the epistemic humility required in pluralistic discourse." Because of evidence which most religions lack, unlike Christianity, which is uniquely apologetic in very objective, non-esoteric manners.
"Your defense of capitalism emphasizes risk, innovation, and voluntary exchange. But you underestimate systemic inequalities: information asymmetry, monopolistic practices, and inherited capital distort markets. And moral questions persist—why should ownership entitle someone to wealth beyond their labor input? Scripture, too, condemns hoarding and economic injustice (James 5:1-6). Christianity is not inherently libertarian." You are right! But my defense is more practical. If there is a disruption of the family, or everyone abides exclusively by secularism/sinfulness, obviously nothing will work, because it is all just sin, which is ruinous. But even so, you cannot explain why these bad things are wrong upon themselves, as all inherent meaning derives from God exclusively, and so sinfulness is general is bad for civilization, civilization which must be defined in God, only strengthening my point of theonomy.
"You assert that Hell will "make him suffer" even if he denies God. But this seems to assume that metaphysical punishment must match subjective experience. What if the True Tyrant wants to be his own god and welcomes eternal war against the divine? This is more aligned with Milton's Satan (“better to reign in Hell”). At some point, fear cannot be the basis for good. Love must be." The problem with "reigning" in Hell is that it is Dantean, as opposed to what Hell actually is, which is total deprivation from Goodness and Being, to a point where even demons fear Hell. As for "At some point, fear cannot be the basis for good. Love must be.", why not? If the True Tyrant lacks gratitude for his Creator, then he shall surely fear eternal death.
"If God's truth is exclusive to Christianity, how do you explain moral insights or goodness in non-Christian systems (Buddhism, Islam, ancient Stoicism)?" These religions are not correct, and all truth is God's truth. Whatever is true, morally speaking, is true because God is the truth, and is omniscient. All moral insights from other faiths are only moral insights if they align with God. the problem of "why?" persists.
"The idea that laissez-faire economics best solves material insufficiency is itself an ideological position, not a settled empirical fact." It is settled and empirical, as many, like LiquidZulu, Hayek, and Hoppe have readily defended against Marxism. The sovereign is one of ideas. Everyone wants a nice car, a house, and all manner of luxury goods, and to be free from tedious work. But that is the egotism and fallenness of man.
"Mutual benefit does not imply equality or justice. Slavery, caste systems, colonial exploitation—many systems appeared stable but were profoundly oppressive." And one cannot tell me why any of these things are wrong without higher divine command.
"This model works only if people accept the metaphysical claims. Many don’t. Which is why pluralistic societies exist. If God is the foundation of order, the collapse of religious belief necessarily leads to moral and civilizational fragmentation (a point many post-liberal thinkers agree on: Deneen, Dreher, etc.)." Ought and is. Pluralism exists, but is incorrect, like how rape exists, but is incorrect, right? Unless of course, you don't think rape is wrong. But, considering you are a secularist, you probably have no reason to oppose it beyond your own preferences. Same with pluralism. People can be wrong, right? Humans are fallible.
"Still, Marxism does provide an account of justice: freedom from domination and alienation. Your view dismisses these concerns unless justified by theology, but others might argue that suffering itself has intrinsic moral weight. You challenge that notion effectively—but your conclusion depends on accepting your theological premises." Alienation is false. All work is tedious and generally unfulfilling unless you are deriving physical activity. Domination? No explanation why it is wrong, as all moral reasoning is in God, and the Bible does not condemn kingship, in fact, it is vital.
"Is there a non-arbitrary adjudicator between competing revelations?" There is nothing further to go back to than divine revelation, in this case, God is the uncaused causer. If you really want to doubt God, then become a Gnostic, but that has its own flaws. But we can be assured that Christ is God, and the truth, by His resurrection, and by general apologetics.
"Your defense of laissez-faire economics is compelling at a functional level—but conflating it with morality (because it "works") is a leap. After all, if capitalism functions better but still leads to dehumanizing inequality or spiritual emptiness (as many claim), does functionality alone prove its moral legitimacy? Wouldn’t the same be said for slavery, which was “functional” for millennia?" Slavery is functional, but not moral. While laissez-faire economics, or at least Austrian economics, are moral in the manner in which there is no transgression in theft or cruelty, unless humans are doing it, only strengthening the case for theonomy, in regulating human sin, not markets directly. It is logical that communism does not work, and is usually rather immoral by the root, and so there must be free markets among a moral people in a moral state.
"While you assert that fear is a valid motivator, even a rational one, the question lingers whether such a system motivates love or simply obedience under threat. Can a just system be truly good if it relies primarily on fear of punishment rather than voluntary love of the good?" A question for the theologians, but I would say that Augustine answered the question quite nicely with fear being the initial point, however, it is just the beginning of the love and respect of God. As the True Tyrant values nothing, and so the fear of Hell and this eternal suffering the human does not want would be then a good motivator. As for further question of "why does suffering even have value?", I suppose in Hell, it isn't merely earthly suffering, but something more ontological, but there is still no reason to pursue purely material comfort, because the "is" cannot have an "ought" without God. And so, while suffering may be unwanted by creation, there is no reason not to commit suicide or inflict suffering upon anyone without divine judgement.
"Your model risks condemning all non-Christians—even those who act justly—to eternal suffering. What of a virtuous pagan, or someone who never encountered the Gospel? Your position seems to allow for no moral insight outside divine revelation—yet history suggests otherwise (e.g., Cicero, Confucius, Hammurabi)." Have I not answered this? They believe in false things and shall be judged accordingly.
"Even granting your view of human nature, the leap from natural to moral still requires more grounding. Christianity itself—especially in the Gospels—challenges many hierarchies (e.g., “the last shall be first”), even if Paul upholds social order." For the heavens and for judgement, but kingship is not condemned, and is viewed as a necessity.
"All reasons descends from God, ultimately. Why should we even have civilization? Why must humanity even exist? This leaves a black hole that Nietzsche attempted to reconcile in his Ubermensch, but this is where my idea of the True Tyrant emerges. Essentially, the True Tyrant is the Ubermensch who when rejects this clinging to values exemplified by the Ubermensch, and behaves violently, selfishly, beholding all to the utmost brutality and injustice because, if the abyss is all which exists in a godless universe, then there is no reason to be as cruel and as destructive as possible. And so even the justification for civilization itself must be derived exclusively from God, because there is no reason to care about human flourishing, or why it is even a moral imperative without God. And so, God's supremacy is vital. The only answer to stop the Tyrant is "you are not God, and will suffer for eternity in separation from goodness, in separation from your Creator (though the Tyrant may not see this as imperative), and you will essentially be in eternal pain and torture, a torture fitted to make you feel uncomfortable, so if you, the Tyrant, have any sense of immaterial preservation that is permanent and eternal, then you ought act justly." Because the Tyrant can change the physical, but not the metaphysical. "Wouldn't the Tyrant view even divine punishment as meaningless, or even embrace it, if nihilism is total?" I have actually struggled with this question, and concluded that Hell will make him suffer, no matter if he likes it or not. Because he is without the Earth, and in deprivation from even the goodness of the imago Dei, he would surely not desire this. "Is the fear of eternal suffering enough to restore justice—or is it just another tool of control?" I actually do not think this matters, because even the idea of "control = bad" is meaningless without God. "What if the True Tyrant sees Hell as another expression of domination—God as just the strongest tyrant?" Good question. I would say God is good, as a being, is goodness, and by nature is perfect, including perfectly good, and immutably so, as God is eternal, and this disposition is affirmed by the Bible. Unlike the True Tyrant, who acknowledges that his idea of total extinction and brutality is merely his arbitrary preference. Hell is certainly punishment, though more of a self-punishment, as one voluntarily sins and rejects God, and so they push themselves into Hell, which I have considered more of a state of being, perhaps with some physicality, like Heaven, but it is best described as the inverse of the Eternal Life that Christ had spoken of, and so, the True Tyrant would logically not desire to enter eternal death. One had thrown the True Tyrant back to me, and said "what if he didn't listen to God? Or know of God?", and I would say that is not the point of the True Tyrant, as the point is exposition of secularism and the necessity of religion, ideally Christianity, though this idea belongs exclusively to Christianity, as all reasoning in this sense must be derived from God. but to answer the question anyway, then he will suffer in hell regardless, and there is a reason not to go to hell, and so the True Tyrant could not emerge from a civilization which is innately religious at its core. Not even necessarily Christian, but just any religion with a concept of an afterlife, though Christianity is the truth. However, among secular parasitic civilization, there is nothing which prevents the True Tyrant beyond sheer force and physical restraint, essentially kraterocracy. To one who says "the City of God would also have to physically restrain the True Tyrant?", to which I would say, if he were to rise, he would be morally flawed, and is prevented from doing so by the nature of a very religious civilization, but assuming some corrupt atheist were to rampage about, it would be a conflict of good vs evil, and wholly just, while the secularists are merely preference vs preference, with no reason to fight the True Tyrant. The idea is that the True Tyrant is at least reasonable enough to restrain himself knowing the divine truth of Christianity, but if he does not, in a literal transpiration of this concept, then it would not be wrong to thwart him in a Christian civilization."
Marxism is ultimately not anymore special than any other false religion or ideology, as their anthropology is all wrong, their moral claims are faulty, and all heretics are dismissed as reactionaries. I say, who is to say that liberation is not material, but in Christ? How do these Marxists know they are not as equally wrong as anyone else? These moral claims issued by the Marxists ultimately mean nothing, as they cannot justify them, or even claim they are right, see the True Tyrant and the problem with secularism. And so, they claim true consciousness would be pursuit of liberation, but how would that not merely be the imposition of ideology like in every other means, from liberal democracy to National Socialism? All rely on faulty claims of morality. Who is to say the interests of man, and true liberation, is not in God alone, as mentioned prior? Why is material so good?
The idea is that all "collectives" are truly mere aggregates of individuals, not a hive mind. And the Marxists have no means of proving this "consciousness", as even the most primitive peoples are neither communist, nor even socially liberal. And so, they just make baseless assumptions about this without considering Occam's razor, that being that most people are naturally dull and skittish, and hardly do anything in groups unless it is culturally enforced, but even this fails in monumentally large civilizations, and the bystander effect on readily proves man's fear and ego. These are not collectives, these are herds. There has never been "mass action" in history, and it is all at the behest of leaders. It is sovereigns who command forces to rule and impose their ideas. Even the common riot is simply a burst of ego and fear, and is ultimately fruitless. Why is liberation good? Why is oppression bad? Why isn't the highest ideal actually serfdom, or better yet, death? Why shouldn't everyone commit suicide? Of course, this all leads into my point that even existence itself must be justified in God, or it is meaningless. There is nothing ignoble about hierarchy, or family, or laissez-faire economics, in fact, these are vital for functioning, as most people are skittish, and do not take up any arms at all lest enchanted or employed, and this is obvious throughout history, as the base of evidence is the fact of man's nature. Hierarchy is vital for defense, and laissez-faire economics are vital for ensuring common productivity and innovation, and the family is vital for preventing criminal activity from permeating and becoming commonplace, as what occurred among the African-American population among the United States, as Thomas Sowell documented, further supported by Dave Popenoe.
How does the communist know that he is not misled, or under the hegemony? How does he know that his interests are actually manorial serfdom in the High Middle Ages? That is my point, it is subjective without God. There is obviously physical well-being, but how is that an imperative? Who is to say that the true liberation is not in suicide? Of course, the true meaning of everything is God, as that is where all meaning descends. This idea of false consciousness presumes some value upon material, beholding it to some kind of goodness, which brings us back to the lack of morality of these Marxists. And so, true consciousness is no different, ontologically, from the goals of any other ideology, whether nationalism, or National Socialism, or classical liberalism.
The Marxist cannot refute the egoism of "I, myself, am the sole proletariat, and everyone around me is bourgeois, and depriving me of material, and thus I must slaughter and destroy everyone to bring about a utopia where I am served and obeyed.", as it entails that if material aspiration is the highest pursuit, then why would anyone care about collectives or utopia, when the mere egoist could establish his own tyranny, and slaughter all who oppose as the counter-revolutionaries of the Revolution of Me. Why are collectives so good? Why not pillage as the ego? But the problem in general is that both the egoist and Marxist assume that material, or satisfaction, are even virtues worthy of attaining, which has no metaphysical substantiation that can definitively proclaim that these assumptions have any value beyond the calls of vervet monkeys.
Man is clearly not collective. Man is social, certainly, but this is an "is", and not an ought "ought", and yet man is not collective, in the sense there is still theft, conflict, disputes, and crime in these so-called collective peoples. Mankind has a nature that is evident in history, which is that mankind is always with leaders, and that history is always a manner of sovereigns guiding civilization according to their ideas, and shaping the world around them, no matter what the axioms are, good or evil. The riot is simply the expression of man's pure egotism, as they achieve nothing unless organized, like the LA riots, while other riots are simply just man expressing his ego and acquiring material luxuries through force. But if acquiring material luxury through force is just, then why not slaughter and kill anyone who obstructs your acquisition? Why submit to a collective? Why not lead an army to enslave the world in a Utopia of Me, where all are enslaved to the Ego. Why is this wrong? And for alienation? Work is never fulfilling anyhow, no matter where it is, labor is always hard and nobody wants to do it, so what is this expectation that there is fulfillment? Maybe in mere physical activity, but no matter what, there is labor, and it must be done. To "socialize" man is to do no better than ideologically indoctrinate him beyond his baser nature. How does the Marxist know man is supposed to live in this manner of socialization, when humanity, throughout history, never behaves this way? And in fact, it is laissez-faire economics which has created the most benefit. And why not die? Who is to say that death is not the highest liberation, and we are all under false consciousness that life is somehow good, or that material is good? If man's nature is infinitely malleable, then perhaps he is to die! Perhaps we must MORTICIZE humanity, not socialize him! Of course, this is silly, but the Marxist cannot answer, for only in God is there answers.
"These responses don’t necessarily restore objective morality but may suffice for functional or pragmatic morality—which is perhaps what secular modernity accepts, to its own detriment in your view." Suffice for what? Why is society is so good? Why not kill as many people as possible? The answer is only in God.
"Are laissez-faire economics truly empirical solutions? What about the poor, disabled, or disadvantaged? Does the invisible hand always lead to moral good, or merely to efficient preferences? This is a debate not easily settled." With the rise in stocks and tech, I don't see why not. My point is, everyone has some kind of purpose.
"This perspective may underestimate the degree to which culture, ritual, and myth shape the consciousness of even the “dull many.” While you are correct that someone must first imagine liberation, the masses still embody it. Sovereigns act, but others must follow, and this following is not always irrational."
Propaganda and innate suggestibility. Why are so many people are Breatharians? "Externalities: pollution, monopolies, exploitation. Inherited inequality: access is not equal at birth. Non-monetary value: caregiving, community, moral growth." None can explain why these are wrong without God. The only ones who can are the Orthodox Church. And the reason a liberalized economy is so good is due to the fact it is moral. Everything, apart from God, comes from something else. So our cars required steel, steel from iron and carbon, iron and carbon from the mines, and mined by miners, who are the contracted aid of mining companies. So why is anyone in the foundation of gathering raw material required to give away their materials? And to answer the dilemma about the employees. The owner of a business owns his business, and employees are contracted aid, and so all of the profits made need only be allocated in accordance to the employment contract. All employees are paid what is in their contract. All profits are the property of the business, more specifically the owner, with all other peoples as contracted labor at a fixed wage. There is a reason why libertarian parties are not dominant. If laissez-faire economics, or any very liberal economics, were actually beneficial to retaining the disproportionate monopoly of large businesses, then they would logically fund those movements which would be so beneficial. But they don't, because laissez-faire economics is very good for small businesses, very good for innovation, diversification, and distribution. Without state intervention, companies must increase wages, decrease prices, and compete for dominance in every field, driving innovation, science, technology, and quality living standards. Why would the employees be entitled to every penny when they did not build the factory, nor the store, nor buy the registers, or the scales, or the conveyer belts, or the machines, or even conceived of the idea to start the business? The business is owned by whoever founded it, and they pay employees to do a specific job for a specific wage, and typically expect nothing more from their employees. What is the owner if not one of the hardest workers with the most to lose? "The workers must seize the means of production.", and well there's great news! The workers do own the means of production, as the owner is arguably doing the most important roles of allocation, distribution, expansion, retention, and delegation, and bear the greatest risks. "The Revolution" as conceptualized in popular socialist imagination shall never occur, because the masses are these dull, skittish laborers who would've died to the elements if not for the intellect and charisma of a sovereign. Under communism, it is theft, it is an economy of theft and stagnation.
In this case, what is the correct form of governance? As socialism is incompatible with Christianity, as private property is defended by the Church, and individuals do not exists in these sort of Marxist-style "collectives", rather, are responsible for their own sins, and are enchanted and guided by sovereigns, but even under this enchantment, are liable for their sins before God. And because of this, the entirety of wealthy people cannot be blamed for everything, nor every individual in a race, or a nation, as this demeans the value of innocence and personal liability affirmed by scriptures. As everyone is organized into mere aggregates of individuals under cultures, under kings, and this is often to their benefit or welfare. This idea of a "true consciousness" of material possession is so false, as there is no reason to pursue mere material, even if everyone wants a nice car, or a nice, house, as this is merely an "is", not an "ought", and because man is so individual in his nature and in his circumstances, there is no imperative for collective taking supremacy above mere ego, as Max Stirner pointed out, but there is all of the imperative to follow the moral law in Jesus Christ. It is then. what I had alluded to prior, theonomy, a model of Symphonia, in which the Church and the state are distinct, and relational, with the state being morally informed by the Church when creating law, as it protects the state from political perversion. Must a state separated from the Church be immoral? No, as this presupposes that morality exists autonomously from God, which is false, as there is no metaethical ontology without God, and without this, there is no meaning to anything, and there is no ontological difference between the Greater Germanic Reich and the Kingdom of Sweden, and no reason to prefer one over the other beyond who you prefer arbitrarily, and so morality must permeate and remain steadfast in the state, and in every stately institution, lest the state become a tyrannical body without a reason not to genocide the human race. And so, it is the Bible where the state derives its authority. But the Bible must be interpreted correctly, and who is to do this? The Eastern Orthodox Church, of course, as they retain the Sacred Tradition, and the Apostolic authority of the early Church, and in this manner, inform the state on moral policy, as the state governs with this morality in mind.