Appendix.
My idea is that all meaning, including civilization, must be derived from divine principle, otherwise, there is no reason to follow it. And so, if there is a theonomic government first established, is the negligence and decay not equally as treacherous as imposing secular law? And so, one must understand human nature to prolong the City of God indefinitely. I first defer much of my point to C.S. Lewis, with the "madman, conman, God" argument to first demonstrate the truth of Christianity as the foundation of presupposition, with Augustine's idea of the mere existence of the universe, with the matter of the historicity of Jesus Christ's ressurection merely supporting the idea that Christianity is true. Of course, in the response to Bart Ehrman, I would say that Erik Manning of Testify Apologetics does a very nice refutation of Mr. Ehrman and a very good defense of the Faith. Does this negate Perennial Traditionalism? I would say so, as mere Western esotericism harbor the latent dilemma of "how do you know?", which bypassed quite sufficiently by Christianity, due to the unique evidential and cosmological arguments in favor of Christ and His miracles. This is thus the foundation for presuppositionalism, as evident in the Manifesto. Furthermore my further citations for my arguments on human nature are derived from history, and the motions of history as driven by sovereigns, even such movements as the Paris Commune guided by their imprisoned leader. And my arguments on man's further social nature rely on Popenoe, Wilson, and Sowell, who are most rigorous in supporting the idea, the objective fact, that any matter of familial erosion is one of great detriment to civilization and the further persistence of civilization.
Manifesto.
Is "progress" not mere kraterocracy? Of course, in defining kraterocracy as the mere argument of "might makes right", and that all moral truth, to the progressives, is derived from their authority, not from morality, which is distinct and transcedant. The leftist and social liberal fascination with this notion of progress seems to be derived of a trope that somehow right will inevitably triumph above adversity or "regress", and that what we in our contemporary world describe as "progress" is actually better classified as "kraterocracy", or otherwise the rule of the strong, as it entails a liberal elite proselytizing their deification of humans as moral arbiters which so happens to include all of their ideology as what is the matter of morality. It is this naïve determinism which catalyzes these trite debate monotonies, such as "the right side of history". I mean, had the Khmer Rouge's Cambodian Genocide been of a superior moral quality than the prior actions of the monarchy, since it is in the liberal sense, progress? Perhaps it is so that these people implicitly recognize that progress is non-existent as a moral code, and so when convenient, convert their kraterocracy into a secularist moral code derived from some manner of subjectivity, circular reasoning, or, ironically, kraterocracy of the consensus. Even moral consensus is kraterocracy, as one attains this consensus via strongman politics, as the masses are not latent philosophers, and have no concept of right or wrong unless instructed by strongmen, and so, consensus is merely the mass expression of subordination to a sovereign a contingent of peoples are sufficiently enamored with. Of course, progress is neither moral nor inevitable, and exists as the mere tenure of the present regime. The secularists essentially believe that whoever imposes their will is correct. And they cannot say that is wrong, because without foundations, everything is merely the will of the proverbial kraterocrat. This does not apply to God, because He is correct and just by nature, and does not have this will as a direct imposition, but as a moral code for the nations to ensure eternal life, and evading eternal death. I mean, is consensus not force as well? I mean, under a Hobbesian, Nietzschean, Carlylean, or even Confucian framework, it is rightly pointed out that most people are not latent philosophers, and are dull and skittish, and so whoever can enchant these millions with whatever --whether threats, promises, or otherwise-- and so the consensus is shaped by the sovereign, and thus truly is a matter of will and imposition. Consensus is just the sediment left behind by someone’s power. But even the king is beholden to the throne of God. And it is only rational to evade eternal death, and so one must follow Christ in orthodoxy, and in piety. If one believes their faith to be true, there is no room for pluralism. Viewing all religions as some kind of civil therapy is a Marxist delusion. Do not fall before secular judgement, for they have no morals which are not predicated upon emotionalism, flawed pseudocosmology, and pure kraterocracy. It is either so that Christianity is true or it isn't, and with the evidence available, the Christian faith is correct. 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. These secularists uphold one pretentious view of religion, that is reduced to the perception that religion is all fake, which is why they are so anti-religion, or otherwise in favor of pluralism. Of course, in stripping this back, their own faith in secularism crumbles quite quickly, as they invent metaphysics without evidence, and justify themselves with nothing upon the inquiry of "why?". Why is human flourishing innately good? Who's to say the true higher meanings of life are not brutality and domination? Why not behave exclusively in one's interests and hurt anyone obstructing these endeavors? The only logical conclusion is in Christianity, or at least in some religion with a concept of an afterlife. And so if divine order must be imposed by the king, he is thus liable for decay. I am skeptical about "the personal is political" when applied to people who are not statesmen. I don't feel anyone's actions harbor any particular substance in any political sense. Politics being this very transient sort of court-military fusion which largely orbits leaders, armies, and economies, not really the "you" or "I". What I have for lunch influences nothing. I think that it is this very sentimental, and quite frankly egotistical idea to believe that one is not a mere drop in the bucket, that culture, sovereigns, military movements, and the manipulation of contingents at the behest of sovereigns is more substantive. Protests, riots, and boycotts mean nothing on a greater scale, as the ball keeps rolling. Small, irrelevant actions mean nothing, but there is obviously some consequence on mass scales. Like if promiscuity were to take hold and the next generation were met with a drastic imbalance, and therefore increasing the propensity for poverty and crime, and ultimately civilizational degeneration, then yes, on a personal level, there is contribution to some kind of decline, but this is not necessarily political, as much as it is moral and sociological in a contemporary sense. Although this would be ultimately the command of the sovereign, as they produce culture, and the inarticulate, dumb millions are then the follow, and by that point, it is more public behavior. But otherwise, what you have for lunch, or what shows you watch, or whatever you attend all mean nothing on a broader scale. Most people are irrelevant beyond their existence as a statistic, meaningful exclusively in their personal lives, and before God. Beyond this, there is nothing to history beyond the clash of kings. There is no meaning or reason without God. The totality of God, as Jesus Christ, separates the rational from the irrational; the theological foundation of God. Without God, one could easily deconstruct any argument of secularism with a mere "why?" as mentioned in prior aphorisms. Without God, there is nothing in the way of reason of morality, and through the abundant evidence of the New Testament, we may clearly see the objective nature of morality as defined exclusively in the New Testament. And why we must follow? Eternal life and eternal death. Beyond that, why would we follow anything? Empathy? So what?... Reason? And?... arbitrarily defined "human rights"? Okay?... Society? Why even care about society?... The point is that there is nothing without God, who is loving, who is just, and who is supreme. Consensus is just the sediment left behind by someone’s power. And so, all reasoning must then descend from God and God alone, and because of this, I have thought of this government, the "City of God", which is an idea about how, since secularism is pointless and God is real, the only human government must be logically derived from God. Failure to prolong and protect this government is a moral failure upon the ruler of the City of God, imagined as a literal theonomic land, which is where intellectualism is derived. The scholars must debate about the best means of prolonging, sustaining, and ensuring the flourishing of the City of God to ultimately serve the moral goal of divine command. So they debate on whether the City of God must be a republic, a monarchy, whether bound by a constitution, or by the Bible alone, and supreme authority, whether it lies in the Bible (Sola Scriptura), or whether or lies in the Church, and defining government along these lines, whether it be theocratic or theonomic. If some kind of moral, theonomic civilization were to be established, all of the rights and laws cherished are all objective imperatives, and therefore, if this civilization were to allow itself to fall, per the liability of the sovereign, that would be the moral detriment of the sovereign who had not secured the civilization, and thus his metaphysical detriment. Nothing which perverts or degenerates civilization should inculturate itself and lead to gradual collapse. This is ideally achieved through voluntary means, a sort of counter-inculturation in which civil, moral values become cultural to ensure longevity of the theonomy. Is it not so that a morally deficient culture destroys itself? The children are raised in confusion, where all is permissible, and go one to behave immorally, commiting whatever crime they please, or venturing into statehood to inevitably implement precarious and mismanaged statecraft. Ergo, a culture requires morality, and the masses must be manipulated into this, for they are aimless otherwise, and anything which corrupts the family unit is something which is degenerating society; this is no incitement of repression, rather, an incitement for all determined sovereigns to assure the civilization of prosperity via cultural manipulation. I find modern matters of socially liberal films, especially for children, to be almost like the reverse Hays' Code, so encouraging matters of homosexuality, which indeed may become detrimental over time as a disruption to the family unit. Children without mothers, or children without fathers, they are left in this imbalance, and are if a sort of confusion which facilitates criminal or obscene behavior which all ultimately destroy civilization. And human nature is good, but wounded, and these inclinations of matters of infidelity, homosexuality, or otherwise are all the wounds, and are broadly degenerative. I view it so that there is no meaning without God. And so, I was troubled for quite some time about why we should have civilization at all? And had come to the conclusion that humans must have some kind of a civilization, or at least a body to defend human rights, but not the secular humanist human rights, more or the medieval human rights excercised during the High Middle Ages. There must be some benevolent, peaceful body to uphold the universal rights, and a body, under a ruler, which is indicated and judged before Christ in their failure to perpetuate civilization, allowing for the entropy of the civilization which defends these rights. I say that there is no reason or meaning without God in a very nihilistic sort of way, but not without its optimism in Christ. Essentially, the passive nihilism which Nietszche had spoken of, albeit with the conclusion in Christ. It is nihilism with the caveat of God. Why have civilization? For Christ. Why have human rights? Because they are derived from God, and any violation is an egregious misdeed. Why even live? To worship God. And my view on intellectualism is similar. I am naturalistic, however, in a very Carlylean sense, the masses are unintellectual peoples bound primarily by nature, as all peoples are, both intellectual and laggard. And in this, the nature must be followed to elude ruinous consequences of severe detriment to civilization and the human soul, however, this nature is not absolutely totalizing, and explains the base necessity of matters of family, marriage, and other institutions, though does not explain certain models, culture, and what is necessary in the matters of understanding history, theology, or otherwise, thus entailing a necessity for intellectualism. Any breakdown of the family unit is verifiably terrible, as noted by Thomas Sowell, as it is an incompleteness which catalyzes emotional dysfunction, and increased chances of poverty and of crime which accumulate over the generations until civilization is in deep decline. This is due to the fact that social liberalism is a social disease, a phenomena which shall be the death of civility and polity via this breakdown of this base unit of civilization: the family. But also, this plague of egalitarianism is equally terrible, for it denies the nature of civilization as a mutualistic body, and not an egalitarian body, and so they seek to implement matters of democracy, which is innately tied to dysfunction, as the laggards and the incivil are left to be enchanted by ill-mannered populists who play rock concerts and sell beer cozies. It is not right that democracy take primacy above civic mutualism. And if leaders are an inevitability, then are they not to enforce morality, and that there are eternal morals that the leader must impose to avoid his indictment before God? If there is a soverign who violates the human rights of any particular demographic, the appropriate response is some kind of reform to remoralize the civilization, entailing that the sovereign becomes moral, and human rights are upheld equally. Why is "inclusion" such a moral imperative? Certainly, all are equal in spirit to Jesus Christ, and good will must be exercised upon all people, but why is this earthly inclusion so good? Is it not right that people may have a preference for their own kind? Their own tongue? Or otherwise preferring a nation of their own? Why is this wrong? The Marxists will spout on about colonialism (which really is not this civilization killer, as any dysfunction is the liability of the sovereign head of state), but the fact of the matter is that such an argument is a non-sequitur, as it does not answer the "why?" in any way which is not derived from emotionalism. All morality which exists is exclusively derived from Christ, and this is obvious, as any other moral statements can be deconstructed with a mere "why?" or "so?". The point of the matter is that any dysfunction or immorality of the civilization is squarely the liability of the sovereign, including repression, which is best repaired by upholding the human rights to pursue God, and manipulating culture if necessary. The masses, as obvious by the motions of history, are egotistical, banal, skittish, and dull, as obvious by the fact that every tribe, every war, every revolution, every populist force is all at the helm of a leader imposing his ideas in the name of continuity or morality. And because of this, any dysfunction among the civilization, whether economic, whether civil, whether moral, it is all the liability of a tyrant. Tyrants are deposed by any means of politics or wars, because the masses are so banal and impotent, and they cannot defend themselves. Of course, markets are the best means of economic allocation, this is the truth as substantiated by many writers, such as Hayek, Friedman, Sowell, and otherwise. Of course, the masses do exist as a free people, a chaotic and atomized force which labors about, and the best means of maintaining well-being is through the best living standards and meritocracy of laissez-faire economics, which are beneficial to all parties involved, provided it remains socially conservative, or otherwise compliant with human nature so as not to incur this criminal burst which occurs when the family unit breaks down, depriving offspring of what they require due to man being a type of organism. These collectives, mere associations of individuals enchanted by a sovereign, such as a political movement. However a civilization is better defined as a web of citadels in the defense and mutualism of these free, or unfree (like serfs), peoples. And within these populations, or within any class for that matter, a movement forms when a leader, or a body of few leaders, enchants others to create a movement, to create forces. Meanwhile, an army is just the offical body of these forces, and may be composed of knights, or professional soldiers, or any fighter for that matter. This is obvious when one sees that leadership has, and will have, always existed, even among primitive tribes, and people do not act upon their own, and are naturally skittish and naturally unabel to defend themselves due to their immediate concerns, and the first civilizations are born from stewardship or morality among the first primordial, tribal sovereigns. Even on these matters of mutualism, even a state severed from the economy receives benefit from voluntary means of donations, and ought to protect this free market, of course, but also in moral obligation, per the moral reprehensibility of theft. The masses, of course being banal and without agency in collectives, due to the fact that collectives are merely groups of individuals as afflicted with egotism and fear as any other organism, they are not machines, per se, because machines obey minute instructions, while these peoples do not, lest they are the simple commands and promises, or otherwise cultural influence. So, I suppose, to me, culture is not the telos, but the tool, or otherwise being something wholly utilitarian to ensuring a civilization may exist without chaos and expediant decline, which would not be beneficial for anybody. Because civilization is ultimately mutualism between their sovereign head, their forces, and the dull many. Though, of course, as a Christian writer, the supremacy of Jesus Christ is where all meaning derives, at least any moral and abstract reason, providing foundations for absolute claims, guided into something more robust in its metaphysics. This view of culture is not Marxist, as this culture is not the "false consciousness", a silly notion, because the many are innately chaotic, skittish, and frightful, and will immediately surrender to the will of any perceived benefactor, so the truth of the matter is that this culture I speak of is wholly beneficial to the welfare of these many, and to all within the civilization, because the denial of human nature is indeed ruinous on a mass scale. When has there ever been these mass actions? Never! Every revolution, every coup, every war, it is the product of the will of sovereigns. From Haiti, we saw their emperor rise as a chief commander during their revolution. In England it was Wat Tyler. Even among the primitive tribes of this world, there are leaders, such as in the Hadza, they have prestige/strength leadership and command. And the average individual is not a latent philosopher, but a frightful, skittish individual malleable at the behest of those charismatics and their simple promises. Without leadership. there is chaos. While riots are typically organized, they are directionless, and so they destroy everything with no target. We saw this during the Seattle riots, in which a warlord, Raz Simone, restored order with cruelty and violence, as opposed to defense. It is thus the conclusion that history is the clash of ideas between these sovereigns, who head civilizations due to their intelligence and perceived stewardship of these polities, and all manner of republicanism, or monarchism, constitutionalism, absolutism, it is all the endeavor to uphold a moral government, or a government which would be most effective in upholding a perpetual moral order. All manner of inhibition imposed upon the state is often intended to provide wise deliberation at the expense of expediency and executive authority, to varying degrees, with an expensive, lumbering bureaucracy being slow, though very much deliberated, though not usually wise it seems, while an absolute monarch may or may not be wise, but ultimately, the civilization is at their prerogative in very broad sense of public discourse. All government itself exists as a orderly means of imposing a moral imperative of some kind, whether order, human rights, public trust, or otherwise. Of course, the masses are frightful, egotistical, and skittish, as evident that even most communal of peoples are at the behest of leadership, such as anarchist Catalonia, the Hadza tribe, and historical steppe peoples with their khans and khagans. All revolutions begin with the few commanding dull peoples, and it was known, which is why the Bolsheviks were not with peasant consciousness, rather, with the Red Army, because people are not hive minds, but readily confused, enchanted, and unintelligent, with chaos ensuing without rulers. History is a clash of ideas of sovereign heads, as evident by every historical conflict, both informal warfare and formal lawfare both reflecting the ideals of leaders imposing ideas they believe to be virtuous. Man is the rational animal of course, and with his nature, it is known. The communists always go to war with human nature. When they inculturate terrible behavior, like promiscuity or homosexuality, it negatively effects the future generations who are brought about in terrible homes without the wholeness of a mother and father united. And in man's nature as frightful, skittish, and egotistical, they fight against this by attempting to enforce collectivization, which is terrible for the longevity and morality of a civilization, and is very much in the opposition to humanity, or at least man's nature, in which the best means of extracting value is laissez-faire economics. And so, the rightful government, as mentioned prior, is the theonomy, or the City of God. And so, all reasoning must then descend from God and God alone, and it must be concluded due to this... the "City of God", which is an idea about how, since secularism is pointless and God is real, the only human government must be logically derived from God. Failure to prolong and protect this government is a moral failure upon the ruler of the City of God, imagined as a literal theonomic land, which is where intellectualism is derived. The scholars must debate about the best means of prolonging, sustaining, and ensuring the flourishing of the City of God to ultimately serve the moral goal of divine command. So they debate on whether the City of God must be a republic, a monarchy, whether bound by a constitution, or by the Bible alone, and supreme authority, whether it lies in the Bible (Sola Scriptura), or whether or lies in the Church, and defining government along these lines, whether it be theocratic or theonomic. But what is the best government? Perhaps some kind of semi-constitutional monarchy is best, investing in the best of both republicanism and monarchism. As for concerns of theocracy: I reject such notions. I do not advocate a government of clergy, and never will, as I feel the Church must be protected from the political perversions of the state, without using this as some justification that government must now be secular and immoral. Ideally something which is like a unelected, hereditary king groomed into power, but only with the powers of an executive presidency. I suppose I am very much unsure. I see the best in both republics and in monarchies, so I would like to conjoin the two into functioning government. I quite admire the American model of governance, and I would have initially loved the initial limitations on authority in which these civic participants were moral people deciding on an intellectual ruler. Quite frankly, I love Liechtenstein, though I am not a fan of the ideas of direct democracy, as they are far too populist. Perhaps the Meiji Constitution is equally admirable, though the position of the emperor is greatly displeasing. Though this is ultimately my opinion on the matter, and I could most certainly be swayed into more ideas of republicanism or monarchism. I would say the best means of facilitating the City of God, this Leviathan, that it would a policy similar to the Hays Code: something inexpensive, effective, and generationally impactful, applied in more criteria than film. Nevertheless, the core foundations for this philosophy detailed rest upon three main pillars 1: The family unit is the most vital unit of civilization, as readily corroborated by Thomas Sowell. Charles Murray spoke of similar things, and his ideas are indeed very comprehensive and rigorous, though I lament at the lack of the same sort of "kick" that Thomas Sowell has in his writings. Though these ideas of the family unit being vital for civilization are readily attested to by James Q. Wilson and David Popenoe which have concluded in the biological necessity of the family unit. I have seen much interest in "Life Without Father" in particular as a clear text to support these ideas. 2: Secularism is without any coherent foundation which is not readily deconstructed by the mere term "why?", and other such probing which yields troubling conclusions, such as the idea of the True Tyrant, a sort of Ubermensch even unbound by any morality at all, including reconstructions under the ideological nihilism, and instead embracing the abyss, and is only combatted with theism, in this case, Christianity. 3: The nature man as naturally egotistical and skittish. I believe it was Leddhin who expressed this idea of this "herd", or otherwise the commoners, who are not particularly intelligent on most levels, as noted by Le Bon in "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind", and Bryan Caplan's "The Myth of the Rational Voter", and corroborated by matters of the bystander effect. This is obviously not what Marx suggests either, as even primitive people are just like this, as evident by the fact they themselves are guided by their own sovereigns, as evident with peoples such as the Maasai, or the Hadza, or in prior histories, nomadic Eurasian steppe peoples, like the Scythians. It is further attested to when even leaders were present in Revolutionary Catalonia, holding a president and local councils. And via the historical fact that no revolution begins with popularity, from England, to Russia, to China, to the United States, and it all begins with leaders, better articulated by Vilfredo Pareto.... And in synthesis, all of these combine, with minor technical finishes, to create this new form of thinking. I would refer to this as the Three Thomas Synthesis: Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Sowell, and Thomas Carlyle, in synthesis, which is the view proposed here.