On Neoheroism: A Compilation by P. Michael Amedeo

I suppose that history should be more fixated on great wars and rebellions which affect the civilization, which is driven by larger-than-life sovereigns, whether solitary or engaged in court politics, and what's more important is the movement of these armies at the behest of elites, and the great court politics as a stage for a clash of ideologies, religions, and philosophies which influence imposition. Equal weight on both war and politics, as both are commanded by elites, who are vanguards of ideology, philosophy, or religion. That is the neoheroic view. Economy is important in the sense it is the production of raw materials by the laboring class of people, whether capitalist, socialist, manorial, or otherwise, these people, the commoners, are indispensable in their ability to produce the raw materials necessary, and any failure to produce is the liability of the sovereign, whose decisions caused such insufficiency. Meanwhile, this oppression is the result of something unintentional, usually. There's never malice or irrationality behind oppression. Meanwhile, class does not matter, as each one serves a purpose, whether raw production (the vast majority of the population who are too egotistical to do anything else), the warriors (who police to ensure those engaging in conscious, criminal deviance are swiftly reprimanded, as well as serving as a civilizational defense. Equally irrational, though paid to fight, or allotted property in exchange for combat services), and the leaders (those liable for every decision made in a civilization, whether oligarchic like in republics, leading to clashes, but also smarter, albeit more deliberative, decisions, or an absolute despotism, which is faster, but not always as smart as a republic.), though each class is more like a complimentary mutualism in relationship, albeit with a very distinct political hierarchy derived from reason.

Only the aristocratic or oligarchic leadership class can rule, this is why we have senators and representatives and a president, none of whom are warriors or producers, because each class serves a function, and while in many models, one can move from class to class, it involves the abandonment of something, such as ex-military statesmen. This further provides a reason why there has never been a pure revolution, in the Marxist sense, for the victorious are often exceptional individuals or cabals of exceptional individuals, as these egotistical producers, or soldiers, that just want what immediately benefits them, and only care about their immediate surroundings, and are entirely benign as well as skittish, and will not act unless given enough simple platitudes of grandeur and feelgoodisms. Every riot is organized, every protest is organized. The French Revolution would not have occurred without Robespierre, the English Peasants' Revolt would not have occurred without Wat Tyler, and the Third Servile War would have been impossible without Spartacus. Man exists harmoniously in hierarchy, in a complementary fashion, just as families exist in a naturally complimentary and mutual relationship, with a man being unable to raise a child without a woman, and vice versa. In this sense, culture is important, as, if there is some disruption to the family unit, the children will be raised in confusion and in deep dread, and a product of this will be a mentally unfit individual more disposed to poverty and crime, and if this sort of behavior permeates, it would threaten civilization. This is why the feudal and manorial lands of Europe were so stable, and why modern nations, in a multitude of other factors, are so unstable and morally corrupt. On morality itself, it exists objectively, however, it is separate from history, as the exceptional may choose to be moral or immoral according to this criteria, and so while their actions have a moral value, they are mostly amoral when committed, and usually accompanied by good intentions, even if morally flawed and misguided. These people, they follow leaders either because they are within immediate benefit, such as money or some kind of simple promise (never complex, never philosophical, often times mere flawed reasoning), or something more manipulative, as these people are egotistical, and, even if a contingent of people were oppressed, the bystander effect substantiates the notion that nothing would happen unless there is some vicar from the metaphorical heavens to raise forces, or in a political sense, utilize complex, intricate philosophical reasoning to persuade others to impose the will of the sovereign. However, it is more affirmed that the childhood effects of degenerate activity is an emotional matter, which most certainly influences mindset and emotions, informing one's conscious actions in a sense, though conscious action is inexcusable, ergo, man is responsible for his crimes, whether theft, rape, or otherwise, as an individual, and a mere victim of circumstance as postulated by Hobbes. What is the necessity of leadership? In a sense, it is for the basics of protection, however, it is not productive to reduce leadership down to mere “protection”, one who commands and army, and while this is necessary, the sovereign is as much of a commander, a diplomat, and a collaborator as much as he is the vicar of ideology. It fundamentally affirmed the banality of the masses as a fundamentally skittish, obedient herd, as documented by many, such as Mosca, who said “In reality the dominion of an organized minority, obeying a single impulse, over the unorganized majority is inevitable. The power of any minority is irresistible as against each single individual in the majority, who stands alone before the totality of the organized minority.”, and this fact is evidenced by the matter that every society in history, without any exemption from this phenomena, as the ability of the few to collaborate in the pursuit of ideology, societal maintenance, and cultural curation in this idea subordinate to maintenance. The truth is that society is constructed in the conscious effort of sovereigns who construct the first primordial citadels which are toiled and farmed in the mutual welfare of the citadel as the citadel provides indispensable defense to the labor which toils away. And this is the basic common denominator of society: the mutual existence of the classes, lead by the sovereign who provides protection, philosophy, and cultural vitality, as the laborers produce the raw materials, whether directly via feudalism or slavery, which are in equal benefit to the citadel, which benefits the labor, or in a liberal economy, which is indirect to the citadel, but in equal service to the citadel, albeit more efficient and moral.

The citadel provides defense of the peoples and an stable culture, and these forces and cultural facets are commanded by the sovereigns, who command the benign, impotent, irreverent, and quite frankly vacuous commoners who are irrational and self-interested, as evident by the fundamental nature of populism, which enchants and entices the banal masses with simple promises and prospects, whether or not they are accurate. In this matter, this freely guides the conclusion the masses are inert, though functional and requisite in their nature. The sovereigns, however, are idealistic in nature, and typically desire to improve society, and this is morally-induced, whether by accuracy in morality, such as in a more theonomic sense, or in a more incorrect delusion of humanism, progressivism, or any other philosophy predicated upon the man-made and deification of humanity. This is in the pursuit of morality, and of civility. Exceptions, such as Manuel Noriega, are in the pursuit of some betterment in a Nietzschean sense, and are more expressedly this “will to power” monolith, and is immutably anomalous, though exceptional nonetheless, and I would further insist the biography of a sovereign is irrelevant in contrast to the important matters of ideas, action in the motions of civilization, whether in court politics, or commanding forth the battles. I would argue the battles and the politics themselves should take primacy in the documentation process, as these are substantive, and influence future events as they inspire sovereigns and spur philosophies to impose by sovereigns, which is necessary in ensuring the telos of moral government and cultural maintenance is sufficiently insured. In conclusion, the sovereign is important in the matters of commanding defense and ensuring the prolonging of society, all within their influences of philosophy, which are consciously and agently imposed upon an irrational, inert masses in a benevolent manner. That is the importance of leadership. There is no contesting the necessity of the family unit, the three estates, the matter of the sovereigns, and the necessity of hierarchy, which all compose neoheroism, and inform the writing philosophies of world & spectacle and space & spectacle. No matter what false teachers say, their ideas are flawed and unreliable, like Marxism, which routinely fails, and it is observed that every nation in adherence to socially conservative ideas is prolonged by the nature of man's natural binary and the objectivity of man, and the idea that he is not some freeform spirit being, but an organism, albeit a rational one. Man and woman exist as objectively as horse or sky, and the denial of such is mere solipsism. One man, one woman, non-mentally ill, and their children, that is is what prolongs society, as it is entirely contingent upon the health of a child, who requires a mother and a father, not a surgically deformed man who believes himself to be a woman --which alone is silly, because these people believe gender and sterotype are synonymous, that a man or a woman is defined by sterotype, as opposed to biology, which opens up the door to suggest that, if a man were to dress in feline attributes, then he would be a cat! But of course, this is ludicrous. And these "non-binary" equally fall short in their logic, conflating gender with sterotype, as opposed to something innate. It relegates everything into mere abstraction, which detracts, so erroneously, from reality.--, and not a single parent alone, as this would all increase the propensity for crime, for poverty, and mental illness, and for this reason, mental health awareness is very positive in effect, but should not excuse behavior which, if they were to permeate, would erode at the very foundations of civilization. In this sense, "punching down" is not wrong at all, by concept, but the context matters. Equal to "punching up", which speaks to a broader point that the world is only structured by the banality of the producing masses behaving as they ought to in the unbeknownst preservation of civilization, and the will of the sovereign in his clash of ideas to improve civilization, and the imposition of such via the courts or the armies. The idea that the world must be driven by sovereigns, yet emancipated from personalism, is a symptom of a more consequentialist perception, I suppose. Am I consequentialist? I suppose so. Duty is meaningless without consequence, unless there is a presupposition of honor, though without consequence, there is not a reason to even uphold a constitution predicated on "honor" or "duty", as there lacks consequence in any instance of violation. It is obvious: collectives are composed of individuals, each as fearful and destitute of philosophical reasoning as any other, and vulnerable to the wilderness, or to organized civilizations. They only become safe when a leader emerges and commands forces to protect, and in exchange, whether conscious or not, the collectives of individuals work in this safety, in the deficit of harm, and their raw production fuels the means of defense and cultural upkeep which protects them. And this is only disrupted when the base unit, the family, is demolished via some permeating force, whether some disturbing counterculture or state-sponsorship, which ultimately leads to children being raised in environments not conducive to adequate development, whether homosexual, whether single parenthood, or whether some form of transvestite upbringing, it is all divergent from the necessary balance and wholeness requisite. Man is an organism, and it is foolish to deny that man exists without a nature, and without function. Mental illness is bad for raising children, single parenting is bad for raising children, homosexual parenting is bad for raising children, and all because it increases the child's propensity for crime and for poverty, suggesting an incompleteness, or otherwise a deficit in natural wholeness which must be followed for children, an instinctual form of humanity which requires this balance. And in this case, I have come to the conclusion that, when intellectual faculties break down, such as on a civilizational level, then only quasi-animalism remains. In the case of revolution, or any alleged grassroots movement, it is the baser instinct which grips the crowds, as they are disinterested in philosophy and reason, and so they obediently and piously jump at the clap of sovereigns who command them with simple promises and bombastic rhetoric. The masses, they are not intellectuals, and so, when they are met with something they do not understand, then they are left to their more primeval insight into the natural human herd mind, though they possess a less animalistic behavior in other facets, such as what they are interested in on a baser level. The fact of the matter would be that humanity shall always be ruled by elites, by nature, and there is no evasion of this fact. The masses are too egotistical by nature, and are more of an instinctual kind of person, ergo, follow the leader. This naturalism is not the denial or defiance of intellectualism, far from it. Man has a nature that must be followed, otherwise there shall be significant earthly consequences. However, this nature is not totalizing, per se, and is more pertaining to matters of base organization, such as family and lifestyle, at which point deviation is to the detriment of health and development. And alongside an overarching nature which is involuntary. And so, while there are behaviors attributed to nature and instinct, as man is an organism, it is however ignorant to deny this free will, and so the balance is so: man has a nature, but it is not totalizing, especially not to the philosophers, the kings, or the theologians. In other words; there is a nature which cannot be denied lest we aspire for dysfunction, yet it is a nature which applies alongside the role of the leaders, the kings, the philosophers, and the theologian.