Sayings by P. Michael Amedeo

Prologue.

Do keep in mind, I agree with the later passages more. If you spot anything in the newer passages that contradicts the older passages, then be assured that I disagree with the older passage in some way.

Sayings.

1: A human is defined as a bipedal, technical primate, made in the image of divinity, with personal agency, rationality, and philosophy. Humanity exists in perpetual, non-linear cycles of rise, decline, fall, secularization, religious revival, enlightenment, stagnation, war, peace, and unity, with a consistency in the progress of technology, art, and entertainment, with politics that bring about great alliances as equally as they bring about great conflicts. Philosophy, religion, military, and economy dominate humanity, and have since the dawn of man across the globe, on their home planet of Earth. Culture has always been the symptom, the mere distorted afterimage of the four dominants of humanity. To clarify, a human, in the simplest terms feasible, is defined as “rational biped”.

2: Culture is defined as a contingent of humans who differ in dwellings and lifestyle from their contemporaries, of which they diverge. Pertaining to culture: taboos of a culture merely exist as amoral arbiters of perpetuation, not as morals themselves, though are necessary in the preservation of the particular culture. The adherence of a particular culture and accompanying traditions are necessary to perpetuate the culture, though this serves merely a pragmatic role to retain unity.

3: I assert a morality, as I am an absolutist, and I am of the firm moral absolutist philosophy, being heavily influenced by the New Testament by the sheer evidence and historicity of the Synoptic Gospels, rationality, and the prophecies fulfilled by Christ, to which I cannot deny, even though I am not particularly religious nor spiritual. Pertaining to morality, it is abundantly apparent that moral governance is to be manifested as libertarianism, respecting the free will of mankind, though is to be passively tolerant, not to be supportive of the inoffensively immoral.

4: Without theology, there can be no morality, as all would be subjective. Any purported secular morality is easily deconstructed by the mere utterance of the word “why?”, which unveils purported absolutes of the subjective bride. Even consensus-based morality is subjective, as one must reconcile with defining how localized this morality must be, otherwise this consensus-based morality entails populations are beholden to the most charismatic leaders, with the most aggressive personalities, becoming the arbiters of all that is moral and right, molded to their whim. Moral relativism is further immoral, as one must contend with people acting as they please without any means of objection, even if these people had become murderous, barbaric coprophagics, to the moral relativist, they are equivalent to a Christian monk who denies himself and lives in virtue.

5: By statistics, social and sexual conservatism are necessary to prolong civilization, and thereby, a libertarian state is to act as a benefactor of the traditional family, the moral family, and is to advocate for culture, tradition, and identity, though obviously this is all merely unlegislated beyond merely incentivizing the traditional family unit, with the deficit of legislation being compensated by advocacy and encouragement. There shall be the inoffensively immoral, who are peoples who follow immoral lifestyles, but are not violating the liberties of others, and are thereby protected and tolerated, though their immorality is apparent. To prolong liberty through conservatism, in which the conservative social-public consciousness acts as the egg, binding the cake of society, and breeding healthy generations of strong children to catalyze golden ages. The entire purpose of the state is defined by a divine mandate to defend liberty and perpetuate itself to prolong its defense, thereby necessitating and providing further reasoning to the sufficiency of social conservatism as a necessity. The state is not merely a superfluous entity defined by secularists as a mere arbiter of equality, this or that, being deprived of rationality pertaining to the existence thereof. It is instead that it is of moral goodness to create a state, and one that conceives freedom. As the rights and liberties of mankind are mandated by God, the government’s non-legislative morality must be reflective of this religiosity to maintain a moral consistency, advocating, though going unenforced, the goodness of God.

6: Invoking “rationality”, “empathy”, or merely “humanity” all fall short as to the “why?” necessary to substantiate these purported absolute secular ethics. To merely baselessly assert that humans have some kind of inherent value is blind, being entirely contingent upon emotions, and an emotional view of humanity without answering the inquiry as to “why?”, of course without defaulting to these subjective feelings.

7: It is paramount to perpetuate the next generation of mankind, for the burdens faced by our contemporary welfare and taxation system shall be immense. The West itself is in a depressive state, and nearing suicide if she continues to huff the paint of abortion, birth control, infidelity, and a culture which is only candor to the notion that career is the only sacrosanct; this entire method of thought is derived of the feminist sterotyping of men, that career and employment are what men derive joy from, ergo the women being deprived of such a joy, and necessitating a change, a civilizational one, in which women attempt to fulfill the obligations of men in the prospects of ascertaining importance, leisure, and pleasure.

8: We, as the American people, ought to alienate ourselves from contemporary society, and demand the liberty we are both endowed, and entitled to by merit of our humanity, and the divinity which has endowed to us these liberties of life, liberty, and property.

9: An Objectivist civilization –which emphasizes virtues of self– all victory shall be attributed to the self, and the self exclusively. Conversely, a collectivist civilization's individuals may invoke divinity, philosophy, and community, and devaluing their personal virtues, exemplifying a disposition of personal detachment. The collective-minded invalidating their humanity on a metaphysical level, impeding on personal victories that are deserved, and relegating their victory to a mere consequence, as opposed to virtuous exception. For a social consciousness to so deprive others of individual achievement and renown, it is transgressive.

10: Family is a paramount institution that arbeits the stability of a civilization, ergo we must subsequently conclude family and tradition ought become the paradigm, as is a necessity for stability, in the defense of liberty and property, the most divinely mandated ideals that are imbued into our rational minds. Though ultimately, technological development is equally important, though a civilization would be utterly reprehensible in the total embracing of transhumanism. Tradition is of the concern of stability, and not more beyond a divine moral command. Technology may be freely utilized in any manner, unregulated, though equal to moral invalids, any state apparatus ought to culturally manipulate insofar as resolving the dilemma of tradition as it pertains to opposition to the persistence of technological development.

11: I reconcile the virtues of the self in contrast with the virtues of family, as I do not perceive the family as a fundamentally opposing force to the self, rather, an extension. For such reasoning, I defer to Matthew 19:6, as well as the validity and historicity of the New Testament in moral law.

12: I feel libertarianism is divinely mandated due to a trust and faith in the Declaration of Independence, which states that God has endowed men the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which is elaborated upon in the Bill of Rights, and what it entails defines life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, God endorses the existence of the United States and her Constitution.

13: Why do many presuppose the moral imperative of democracy? I feel it is the delusion of egality, and the perception that exclusion is negative, irrespective of context, which is I feel influenced by a rather Marxist, and subsequently simplistic, view of the world. Of course, hierarchy of the merited ought to exist, lest the merited be stifled by the incapacity of the collective, which has prior sought in history to deprive the most merited of their entitled authority. The virtue of meritocratic hierarchy derives from the necessity of leadership, which encompasses the preservation of liberty. Is it not an inherent moral good that we harbor individuals in our society which are endowed with such apparent skill, and elevate them to leadership positions, as they are the most qualified and elegant? Without the rule of the merited, there is only kakistocracy, which is insufficient in the preservation of liberty. Hence, I detail the exclusive voting minority in the enlightened aristocracy. “Enlightened aristocracy” entails a criteria of wealth and education which must be met, lest we see the rise of the invalid, the irrational, and the abhorrent, and the imminent death of liberty. The perfect, eligible voter ought to be a culmination of wealth, land, education, moral conviction, and political acumen. Democracy provides power exclusively to the most irrational of individuals –those who undermine liberty– those who shall exclusively vote in a manner which is immediately socially acceptable, per their herd mindset.

14: To so assert and impose a purported authoritarian nature upon enlightened aristocracy is a ludicrous thought, as the system of enlightened aristocracy is specifically designed to deliberate and prolong a libertarian state, and create an environment hospitable to a constitutional republic. The diffusion and distribution of state prerogatives is an imperative. As mentioned in prior aphorisms, the state ought to be relegated to the most minute position in life, merely prolonging liberty and perpetuating itself, and the only attainable is the defense of such a sacrosanct, with this perception being more than compatible in the accommodation of enlightened aristocracy. Exclusion from the political process is not the befalling of tyranny upon those who meet an insufficient criteria to participate.

15: Humanity developed the irrational herd mindset due to the necessity of of survival, and the immediate vanquish of threats which have been imposed upon us by the natural order, and yet, as our civilizations maximally increase in size due to the domination of the natural order, the disparity of the common intellect, which aids survival, and the ruling elites-presumptive becomes far too great of a deficit, and to mitigate ramifications, we must conceive hierarchical governance as a moral and biological imperative.

16: Utilitarianism is predicated on the irreverent notion of “happiness” being a quantifiable, almost tangible, substance, which I find to be insightful into the internal psychology of individuals who espouse such notions, those who deny metaphysics, tradition, and embrace the utmost of materialism. Of course, the dilemma of quantifying happiness derives from the intangible nature in which it is confined, and how subjective happiness ultimately is, ergo, unable to be truly quantified into any applicable governance.

17: I would like to believe extraterrestrial life is not but a myth, that cosmos is merely mankind’s breadbasket, and Earth as the jewel of the cosmos. I disagree with such preconceived notions of “extraterrestrial life” as they are merely pop-fiction fantasies. From a philosophical perspective, why would one desire extraterrestrial life to exist? And accompanying this inquiry, I feel the psychology is ultimately contingent upon a negative view of humanity, and the implicit belief that mankind is not merely a creature which is in perpetual solitude, and as prior established, festering without purpose, and life only degrading. I believe in the exception of humanity, and the perfection of the cosmos, and humanity, being imperfect, entails the cosmos shan’t harbor replications of ourselves, or beings akin to ourselves. Though obviously, I believe that humans ought to conquer the cosmos, our constellations, and further, which I believe to be a right of any intelligent race, irrespective of perfection. Even in our imperfection, the cosmos cannot be tainted by our presence, akin to how Earth has not; which some naysayers proclaim “climate change” and whatnot, but that is false, as life shall continue, even if we erroneously presuppose “climate change” is anything substantial or consequential. Of course, this perception is only applicable to the philosophical matters, as opposed to a matter of the four dominants. Thus is my inclination to favor a barren universe.

18: On race itself, I would advocate for the racial constitution of all peoples to be one of amicability, and that there is nothing immoral in the support of one's heritage, nation, tribe, or attribute which constitutes a cohesive identity of both the individual and contingent. On racial segregation, however, and on the policy of whether "seperate but equal" is moral, I think that is debatable, but I would argue that it is insofar as it is voluntary, and not a beholden stipulation imposed upon a populace by a government. I believe that there will always be a disparity when accounting for government bias, thus, I feel if such dispositions were to be implemented, it should not be any government imposing them, so as to avoid any transgressions and infringements upon the endowed constitutional rights of all peoples. Thus, my argument is ultimately one I defer to my libertarian persuasions, and I make my conclusion an appeal to the Bill of Rights and minarchist government, without any capitulation nor abrogation.

19: There are two spheres of mankind: the rational and the irrational, and this entails that politics is operaesque and theatrelike, meanwhile society is driven more impulsively, though this isn't to deny intellect and agency, rather, that agency is accompanied by irrationality. In this reason, there are leaders and followers, and the march of history is exclusively driven by great men and the philosophies which they harbor and have sought to impose. These great men work to facilitate their philosophies via the sword of an army, or via the olive branch of the court, both being means to an end of exacting a philosophy via these feats. However, these great men's philosophies are wholly distinct from themselves, and thus we must not concern ourselves as studious peoples in the personal lives, but rather, their philosophies and feats, which are ultimately more important, as the feats are history, while their personal identity is excluded from this nomenclature. Civilization is grand, and the great movements, banners, colors, insignia, subcultures, and great politics are the ingredients which exist. I hold to the primacy of great men interacting with each other. A coup here, an edict there, it is all this interaction, clash of ideas, and the pursuit of either stability, alliance, autonomy, or prime authority. This is the operaesque disposition. Individuals possess agency above all, and some of these people are far more rational than others. And while impediments may be imposed upon a people, it does not negate, even for the most irrational people, to possess agency, as all people harbor a baser rationality, though for most, it is obfuscated by their inevitable fallibility. It is the consistent application of this rational mind, and overcoming certain fallibilities, which truly constitute a leader, a larger-than-life figure who contributes to the march of history.On the matter of the masses, armies and movements are composed of a preponderance of irrational people who have sought self-interest in their pursuits, meanwhile, the rational constituents, as few as they are, shall rise the ranks, as they are driven by the pursuit of a common attainable with their leader, diplomatically rising to impose their philosophies, as the leaders had.

20: I think the destruction of Rudolf Hess' memoirs, the discontinuation and criminalization of My Struggle, and the prohibition of the NSDAP are all mere admissions of impotence: that democracy must be protected via the paradoxical negation of true free thought, and these works destroyed, and thus these people who proclaim themselves arbiters and vicars of democracy then engage in similar transgressions to those they had sought to repress. If these ideas are so evidently abhorrent, then what is the burden to censor these ideas? It should be of no necessity, lest these democrats are willing to admit that not all people are sufficiently equal, and that democracy itself is the empowerment of the least rational, who will blindly follow leaders such as Adolf Hitler. I think anyone who desires to suppress the freedom of thought is an authoritarian. Is it a necessary idea to prohibit free thought? To endow the state with the prerogative to censor those who are deemed to have met the criteria of what is intolerable? A rather arbitrary criteria. Thus, the state grows into an opulent, parasitic apparatus which must censor all which it disagrees. I would find it to be deeply offensive that the state imposes legal consequence upon those who dare to speak their mind. That is an irreparable transgression, an assault on liberty itself. I believe some kind of minarchist state must exist to defend liberty, and perpetuate itself to further defend liberty. This state would only intervene when the infringement of liberty is met. This entails the absolute right for anybody, fascists, National Socialists, Stalinists, et cetera to form whatever voluntary backwater they desire, in full adherence to their ideas, but once someone is being involuntarily restricted, this entails the state must step in for its sole purpose and obligation.

21: I think moral relativism is the most sterile and filthy notion we propagate in our society. There is no reason to oppose murder, rape, or theft if the world is without divine authority, and if one appeals to there subjective emotions, then one must so happily ask "why?" as their repudiation. I am a moral absolutist, as I am in favor of Christianity, though in this matter, if there is no law prescribed in the New Testament on any matter, then I have no moral judgments to behold others to, while the inverse is true when laws are prescribed. I oppose the machine men who govern our lives, making idols of papers and organizations, and worshipping men, making their pledges and odes to their gods at the UN, and the gods of the UN pantheon reprimanding heretics such as Russia, who follow their Christian faith, which is intolerable in the eyes of the pantheon of men who demand worship and sacrifice. Is it not so disingenuous and fraudulent that men prescribe a moral system devoid of transcendent forces? That these men —equal to all other men in substance, and who are of no good nature— demand that we, the people of Earth, adhere to their rules? I follow God's rules, as God is fundamentally good by nature, and there is divine reprimand and eternal suffering if one decides to separate from God, and accepting the subsumbtion into corrupting forces, via the enactments and emulation of wrong behaviors, behaviors that are bad, as they are prescribed by God, who is good and moral by nature: that is the foundation, that is the appeal; God is good by nature. And these machine men desire to be God, they desire to act as gods in their Mt. Olympus of Manhattan: false gods, idols who demand the worship and subordination of all of the world's peoples.

22: Religion is more influential than originally analyzed, as all peoples harbor some faith, even in proclaimed atheism, everybody worships something, whether material idols, whether themselves, whether ideologues, or whether statesmen, and that is only the material religion, as others worship immaterial, perennial, or metaphysical forces, is there is a constituent portion of the brain which is fundamentally religious. Whether one is worshipping God, Shiva, the collective, the individual, the state, the media, or otherwise, all men possess an inescapable religion. Most certainly, even the atheist is inclined to worship himself, natural forces, or other syncretic forces. Although I find most Western atheists worship the ideology of atheism, which is a rather regressive ideology which parasitizes Christianity whilst simultaneously denigrating the faith, while equally being incapable of articulating why they adhere to any morality beyond invoking subjective frivolities as trite repudiation, as if the natural world is somehow good by nature, or that pain is something negative to inflict upon people for some arcane reason yet to be explained by the atheist. I think atheism will continue to rise in correlation with modern society's decadence until the next societal collapse, when men realize once more they cannot craft gods of themselves, and so revert to the faiths of old. It is a fundamental psychology. Atheism is the mere transient luxury of modernity, afforded only to those without the necessity to hope, and thus contributing to stagnation as they leech on the prior achievement of the religious men of yore who had so laboriously crafted the a society which would foolishly collapse to decadence due to the leaders becoming corrupted and liberal, as their psychologies and subsequent philosophies tangential thereto are perverted.

23: I believe Carlyle was right in believing history as an event organized by the elite, as due to a fundamental psychology, humans crave some kind of leadership, per the Bystander Effect, and thus have sought sufficient leaders who then creepingly conquer the minds of many, halted only by the irrational self-interest of most people. This is why populists are so pervasive in our paradigm, from the left, from the right, and eve from the center, there is the rise of populists, which can be attributed to a mix of Enlightenment ideals of misplaced egality --suggesting all peoples are blank slates and equally deserving of political endowment, even in an absence of proficiency-- as well as a rise in amoralism, as politicians are becoming ever secular, and so have no moral persuasions to halt the ever-detrimental march of political democratization. This pertains greatly to our Carlylean history, as this entails a time of struggle, as we have immoral peoples controlling fundamentally stupid masses who have never thought of rational concerns, and are instead preoccupied with the vanity of politics. For this reason, democracy ought to be abolished in favor of an enlightened aristocracy. I speak not in the favor of a rejection of the Enlightenment, but in ode to an Enlightenment which arbits genuine improvement, as opposed to merely empowering those who contribute nothing substantive to intellectual discourse, reprehensibly so.

24: Why must these ignorant peoples denigrate mankind? It is this silly notion that man's destruction is somehow immoral, as opposed to a monumental feat of greatness that are race may harvest resources from the earth, the rock, and beyond. It is actually a greatly misguided concept of other philosophers, to dwell within their ivory towers, taking walks through any protectorate of untouched wild emasculated by mankind's laborious endeavors of civility, then to say how abhorrent the activities of man are whilst being inexperienced. Is man truly to deprive himself of technical progress in order to satiate these transient philosophies? To deny ourselves what is right and just of species? It all seems so lame and sterile, focused so shortsightedly upon immediate dilemmas which only stagnate man's expansion. These are extinctionist dispositions held by the critics of man, and they derive their stewardship from ignorant emotionalism.

25: Surely there is no inexcusable offense in the retention and indulgence in frivolity even in one's senescence? The childlike whimsy to punctuate the dreary monotony of arbitrary life, which we are all too keen to accept, even in her blemished and impure state which seems to be immutable. I see no transgression in such admirable elusion, in fact, our ancestors in their petulant vanity had constructed follies of vast lands, just as Sargon of Akkad or Napoleon Bonaparte. Surely, must the imposing modernity which we are entrenched in erode our essence to such excess? Surely, whimsy and delusion provide such favorable intrusion info reality which penetrates the minds of heroes who conquer guided by the star of the vain.

26: The problem with democracy is that the system attempts to utilize something for broad civilizational health, culture, and apply it to governance, entirely unaware that elites produce culture, and so democracy is not the pure reflection of the popular view, but rather a reflection of the charisma exercised by those who can adequately manipulate the self-interested peoples of broader society. The people of society are aimless unless directed, and cannot produce culture, being beholden to the directions of leadership. Though culture is necessary, such as maintaining the family unit. If culture becomes immoral or deviant, then these populations behave this way, which is bad for the economy and demographics, as fatherless children are more likely to be unsuccessful. If one leader were to direct a culture into one of promiscuity or immorality, the consequences of economic and demographic collapse would occur, and the ever-self-interested population can easily fall into immorality, such as engaging in homosexual or transgender behaviors. The best system of government is one in which only the elites are permitted the prerogatives to vote, as all of these people are rational and intelligent, and so would truly vote on what matters most.

27: I feel modernity is ever-decadent and absurd. The prevailing notion of complete dissonance has predicated the archaic nature of divinity, while simultaneously self-deifying, becoming moral arbiters of all matters, Kant, their prophet facilitating the rise of the pseudo-religion, liberalism. Only few can dictate morality, men delegated this position in the UN, they metamorphize fraudulent gods while proclaiming "behold, for the gods of ancient are antiquated!", a dissonant notion, and an utterly outlandish incongruency which is all too pervasive. I feel this is a sort of self-perpetuating system, liberalism, as it is entirely contingent upon mass politics and the manipulation of those unfit for governance, as the emotional who have been beholden to a curated culture of godlessness then indulge in the religion of society. The futility of politics is apparent. Only philosophy, and the application thereto, is of any true concern, and absolute alienation from such fluidity is ideal. By politics, I mean these scandals and massacres. I believe there must be some kind of prevailing societal philosophy of governance, though ideally devoid of these petulant petty court musings.

28: All peoples are entitled to universal civil rights of life, liberty, and property, but these masses can be readily manipulated into voting for degenerate behaviors. Even if the constitution of the nation were stagnant, immutable, and would override any other laws, there is still the matter of culture, the social network, et cetera. If people are encouraged, culturally, to engage in degenerate behaviors, due to the nature of culture, these masses will engage in degenerate behaviors, and the ensuing plague of mental illness will assure the ponderous collapse of civilization. Ergo, the state is only to espouse what is moral, what is just, and essentially manipulating culture to ensure prolonged civilization. However, this idea of prolonging civilization itself is exclusively for the defense of liberty in a societal sense. Liberty is an imperative among all, and the universal civil endowments are to be protected, but how can they be protected if society is in a perpetual state of collapse due to degenerate culture which only produces mental illness? I perceive mental illness as a plague as much as I see disease as a plague. If a society begins espousing homosexual or transvestite behaviors, that leads to poor child development, later crime, which is bad for society.

29: I think Enlightenment society was almost predisposed to failure, as it replaces God with fallible humans who deify themselves. Now that we see our man-made gods are liars and crooks, society is in this sort of moral crisis, because nobody can define what is right or wrong, because they have accused the foundations of morality of being archaic. In truth religion is the ultimate point of morality, and when removed, creates this sort of civilizational dilemma of positive reaction vs negative progress: does society revert for the better, and for what is ultimately beneficial — or does "progress" remain steadfast, and our kraterocrats drive civilizations into the ground by imposing increasingly detrimental policies which inevitably collapse immoral societies which have destroyed what maintains society.

30: History is broadly driven by either 10,000 swords commanded by a general, or the stroke of a pen commanded by a statesmen, both involve the fate of civilizations commanded by the few, without any exception.

31: 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. This is the necessity of our time.

32: An essay I had written, "On Sovereigns and Civilizations". This ties into my philosophy about writing. In this sense, I believe that if writing is supposed to reflect realism, then it should focus on greater events. Emotion, personalism, or otherwise, it is entirely irrelevant to the matter of history. History ought to be recorded as the court politics and laws of a sovereign, as well as the military movements commanded by the sovereign. Wars, rebellions, politics, all bound together by the ideals of sovereigns, philosophies and ideologies. There is no necessity for development, interiority, or even motivation for characters, as it is all irrelevant to the matter by which history moves. Is it important what Napoleon had for lunch? I think not. Had Jefferson Davis' untied shoelaces been more important than the Battle of Fort Sumter? I think not. It is ludicrous to suggest a grand army at the hands of a sovereign, or a clash of ideas within a court, are undervalued and eclipsed by irrelevant personalism, which is tangentially related to these matters at the very best case scenario. The truth is, civilizations and their motion, and religions, as commanded by soverigns, is infinitely more important than whatever irrelevance contemporary fiction so cherishes. To expand upon this philosophy, the ideal story exhibits booming, thunderous speeches, great declarations, heavy expository dialogue, armies in motion, movements of great quantities, factions of all manner of court, religious, and military, great battles scaling worlds, as there are great explosions, cavalry charges, and otherwise. The writing certainly features heavy worldbuilding, as most world & spectacle pieces are more akin to space opera, except entirely stripped of personalism in favor of constructing religions, civilizations, races, et cetera in a setting set across space, with certain recurring worlds. This writing philosophy is referred to as "world & spectacle", and the space opera-inspired offshoot is merely "space & spectacle".

33: Why would anyone follow any honor code if there is no consequence for refusal? I suppose consequence could be invented, such as execution or imprisonment, however, this brings into question where morality even derives. Where do these honors emerge and how are we sure we are not mistaken? So what if humans have empathy, reason, or even emotion? Why not torture the innocent and pillage the scarce and plentiful with equal brutality? My questions are, of course, rhetorical, as divine command is the only answer. This is a problem with secularism. Was Eleanor Roosevelt a prophet? How did she know what was and wasn't moral? Is Mrs. Roosevelt the goddess of modernity who we must worship, and organize into UDHR temples and parishes? The problem is the "why?". Why do we care if people suffer? Why care about anything if we live in a godless world? Rape, batter, and destroy, in a godless world, these actions are of an equal moral weight to providing charity to the unfortunate, or petting a kitten, or constructing roads. In a godless world, all moral weight is the invention of fallible humans. Why is it so that some humans are just endowed with some kind of divine authority to dictate a moral code? Well, if we presuppose the ideas of Pareto or Mosca, true consensus morality itself is merely the imposition of an arbitrary moral system by a charismatic, a will-to-power Ubermensch, so to speak. As for the constructivists, so what if it is useful? Why should we even have society? Why should we not brutalize eachother? Why? Why? Why? Of course, I am a theist, so I know why, because hell awaits the corrupt, and heaven awaits the righteous.

34: These people, these modern social liberals, 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. It is perfectly fine to abstain from sterotypes, but in an objective sense, one's gender is innate, lest we fall into this trap of defining everything as a sterotype, then we would have denied reality. If a man claims to be a horse, and modifies himself to achieve various horse attributes, then is he a horse? Biologically, neurologically, and in any objective sense: absolutely not. This is because sterotypes are not definitions. So if one were to say "I am neither man nor woman", that would go in direct contrast to the scientific truth, and would merely be the ramblings of a confused, possibly mentally ill individual. My point is that defining things by mere stererotypes is insufficient to objective truth, and so man and woman exist objectively. Just as a man in a diaper isn't an infant, by his biology, a man in a dress is not a woman, by his biology. It is dysmorphic and disordered to merely commission the butchering of one's body due to their own depression. A man is defined as an adult human male, and any other definition would be inaccurate, or metaphysically unsound.

35: This religion, Holocaustianity, dominates the Western world. There is Eleanor Roosevelt, the prophet who delivered us, the banal peoples of the West, the UDHR, and what authority? The ruins of Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, alongside the power of the atom bomb. And just as the Ottomans humiliated the Greeks, the UN humiliated the German people, most of whom were innocent and benign, undeserving of such reprimand which was rightly placed on the leaders, who organized and commanded forces, not the innocent Germans who were brutalized by Allied occupation. This is the consequence of Marxism: innocent peoples collectively beholden to barbarism over the actions of the few. In this view, the Holocaust was the original sin, and the German people are this race of demons who must be subject to chains, as the new gods in the UN proclaimed "never again!", as they endorsed draconian laws throughout the 20th and 21st century, and demanded any nation illiberal, or otherwise heterodox, be subject to the most hardship, such as the Russian state, who the economic punishment now lies with the Russian people.

36: The commoners know nothing, and concern themselves not, with philosophy, esoteric philosophy, or theology, and they are these dull, skittish laborers by which the base of civil production is facilitated. I'm not speaking contemptuously, as this is ontological, this is not that the "proles are stifled and that's good", but more that the masses are identifiably benign and skittish by the sort of herd nature observed by Hobbes, Nietszche, and Aquinas, and even Lenin recognized this. The masses are not latent philosophers, and primarily driven by emotions, and being commanded by others, and this even occurs in primitive tribes, no matter how communal they seem, there are always leaders and followers, and this is even observed in other creatures like chimpanzees and baboons.

37: Is "progress" not mere kraterocracy? 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 naive 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.

38: 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.

39: If some kind of moral, theonomic, possibly libertarian 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. 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.

40: In reading Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's The Menace of the Herd, and spoke of the herdists and the romantics, and the essay apparently claimed that marching armies, and enjoying them in appearance, even merely watching them, is a sign of primitivism. I counter this, as I would prefer to say the enjoyment of massive armies moving forward thustly are in fact not a sign of primitivism, but rather, a sign of mental complexity to enjoy these movements, as it is linked to the desire for scale, and to see thousands, and tens of thousands, then brought to the will of their generals in a command hierarchy. The primitive herdist does not like hierarchy, and percieves humans as interchangible, but in this case the soldiers serve a purpose beyond mere survival. Of course, being in an army is not something I particularly fantasize about, though overlooking a vast number of forces all beholden to the stipulations and command of the few, that is the opposite of egality, and the inverse of the herdist mind. I suppose there is a disparity in the perception of this dichotomy. The megalophile who is an otherwose intellectual, and anti-populist fellow admires the vast armies, great statues, large buildings, and endless fields and market stalls tended to by commoners. This is not at all the herdism of Leddhin, and is moreso the evolution of romanticism, and the romantic mind, which aesthetically recognizes the beauty of the elaborate, vast, expansive, few, and numerous, while affirming the necessity of hierarchy, sovereign command, and the opposition to populism. While the masses are indeed the inarticulate, dumb millions as expressed by Carlyle, it is not right to suggest that it is "primitive" to admire the grandeur of civilization from a more detatched, or perhaps epic, beholdance.

41: 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 concieved 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.

42: There is no meaning or reason without God. The totality of God, as Jesus Christ, seperates 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.

43: 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. And so if divine order must be imposed by the king, he is thus liable for decay.

44: The problem with Joel Osteen, and the Prosperity Gospel in general, is that it implicitly denies the Fallen nature of humanity. In conventional Christianity, humans are fallen, sinful, and deserving of Hellfire due to man's original sin, yet God, in His eternal love and compassion, does not destroy humanity, but provides a means of salvation in Christ, who is equally God. This deviates from the Prosperity Gospel, and especially the ideas of Joel Osteen, which teach human sufficiency, a false doctrine which borders on Pelagianism. If it were so that the faithful are provided the most material wealth, then the apostles must have surely been the wealthiest, most opulent, most powerful men in all of Galilee.

45: 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.

46: Any whom proclaim themselves Christians, yet attempt to "progress" the faith do not believe Christianity is the truth, and affirm the axioms of which our modern kraterocrats espouse. How can one support progressive Christianity if they believe Christianity to be the truth? If it is the truth, there is no requisite reallignment of doctrine. It is only when one deifies humans to the status of divinity, and support any notion that humans can create morality, like God, that one may proselytize progressive Christianity. If Christ had indeed risen from the dead, and subsequently defeated evil then and there, then the teachings of Christ are final, and mustn't conform to the times, as they are shaped by kraterocrats, especially in our Godless time which celebrates deviancy, career, and indulgence, fetishizing the human above the worship of Christ. Only in Christ may we mere humans explain what is right and wrong. What is so wrong of these things so demonized in our modernity? How do we know these things are truly wrong? Then we must navigate this treacherous position only in the teachings immutably documented in the New Testament moral canon. If a modern kraterocrat proclaims "the Earth is flat and the stars are mere points of light, not bodies!", would the progressive Christians subsequently reject the objective truth, and proclaim all who deny the will of the kraterocrat are disordered or antiquated? The progressives would gladly lay down their crosses and kneel before idols of modernity because they are not Christians, and see Christianity as something to be reconciled, and not the truth.

47: There are two strands of philosophy: the observant, in which natural systems are merely explained without moral condonance; then the moral, which explains the virtue or detriment of actions, both personal and civil; however, there are indeed connections between the two, such as explaining a metaphysical phemomena, which requires some kind of moral judgement, implicit or explicit, in a Christian context of Western philosophy.

48: There are two strands of philosophy: the observant, in which natural systems are merely explained without moral condonance; then the moral, which explains the virtue or detriment of actions, both personal and civil; however, there are indeed connections between the two, such as explaining a metaphysical phemomena, which requires some kind of moral judgement, implicit or explicit, in a Christian context of Western philosophy.

49: 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.

50: What is culture if not the civic arm of the leviathan? The head of the leviathan extending its reach to manipulate the peoples of the body into one coherent lifestyle, or food, or media, and it is all sustained, and the leviathan's head is typically just, unless we are referring to this modern culture which defies all moral and natural orders, and encourages destruction. Culture is commanded by elites, and they are the ultimate authority, and so the just rulers uphold quality culture which shan't sink into depravity and moral entropy, instead shall do as the greatest kings of the Middle Ages had done, and maintained culture, and subsequent prosperity. On a mere individual level, culture is not decieded, because the little men do not arbitrate culture, and so typically most people do not matter, but in regards of big events which grip the culture, then you see then the enchanted peoples behaving terribly, that matters, and while they are conscious in their actions, they are suggestable by the elites. This idea of "false consciousness" is silly, and is so roundabout, or otherwise convoluted, merely to deny Occam's razor, that the masses are just these banal, dumb millions.

51: The nature of politics is one of morality and civil continuity. The factions and parties battle over what is moral, whether their perception or otherwise, and they act in reason and philosophy, creating conflict between ideas. This is formal affair, while informal affair is war. The informal is some kind of war between forces commanded the few, of course, and they occur when formal affairs have broken down, or when it is politically advantageous, at which point, armies invade lands as war is declared, and factions clash on the battlefield, killing eachother for the prerogative to impose a will. It is a battle of cunning, wits, morality, and continuity.

52: There is indeed some kind of moral imperative leaders of a theonomic civilization must uphold, lest they are to be morally indicted. This includes the prohibition of abortion as an act of murder against the unborn. Banning abortion is not a matter distinct from banning murder, as, if we are to prohibit the taking of innocent lives, then should it not include the unborn? Are the unborn truly less than human? In any scientific, and biblical sense, abortion is murder, and ought to be prohibted throughout the land, and charged rightly as murder, with due process, justness, and clarity.

53: If leaders are an inevitability, then are they not to enforce the human rights of all, per medieval/libertarian principle? That there are inalienable rights that the leader must impose to avoid his indictment before God.

54: 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.

55: I quite enjoy repetition and clarification, as it fully enforces a fact, or a view. Like in the Synoptic Gospels, everything fits together. And restating facts of worlds and such is good for establishing that the phenomena is not disappearing. Repeating facts, information, adding information, saying the information from a different angle, or otherwise, it is all very enjoyable to me. What may befall us if we neglect repetition? Well, then information goes clearly unconfirmed, as opposed to confirmed.

56: If there is a soverign who violates the human rights of any particualar 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 excercised upon all people, but why is this earhly 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 abou 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.

57: Civilization is most accurately defined as a web of citadels bound together by taxation, or culture, or alliance, or some combination, but the point is would be that the citadels are formed from a sovereign protecting others in a generally benevolent, mutualistic manner, though the masses are too dull, egotistical and such, and so are protected anyhow from the initial spark of human civilization. Then from the citadels, they formed webs with eachother due to ideas, military, taxes, culture, or otherwise. 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 recieves 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.

58: I must say, this modern infatuation with prostitution and pornography is so defiling to these women on the basis that they reduce themselves to these sexual objects devoid of humanity, and are essentially reduced to cheap goods to encourage promiscuity, defile their own bodies, and really deprive themselves, if happiness is some kind of pursuit, of the joys of family in favor of this careerism, which is emotionally unsatisfying on a personal level, and it is morally and metaphysically damaging, per many Christian philosophers, who have written such things.

59: While I am indeed more in favor of Carlyle's model detailed in "On Heroes...", I feel that the sovereign, or hero, should only be known by his actions, and his incumbency, as these biographics are mere context to rise, and authority, generally superfluous beyond a psychology class, and so it is better to record history by the command and consequence of the commands and edicts of sovereigns, or otherwise "the hero as king", as that is more conducive to the motions of civilization, while fully affirming the Carlylean, and otherwise neoheroic models. Commanding armies and laws, such and such.

60: 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 percieved 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.

61: I reject the overtly Hobbesian notion that human nature is innately terrible, but something more amoral, or otherwise good, but wounded, per Aquinas. Of course, in compliance to the accepted Thomism, it is thus known that the many are not intellectuals, and are indeed frightful and skittish, as mentioned prior, though this is not "immoral" in the sense it is evil, or otherwise the tool of demonic forces, the wounds of human nature, and is instead something wholly natural, though controlled by a sovereign to prevent entropy.

62: 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. 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 exlcusively 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.

63: There is no reason to follow the Marxist morality. No reason at all which is not something which justifies kraterocracy, and mere emotionalism. The Marxists are typically very morally bankrupt people and have had no issue with things such as murder, even today, many Marxists support the persecution of their enemies. Why? Because they have a moral system without evidence for it. They believe in these surface-level "moralities" without any reason why we should follow them, or how they know these are moral, beyond mere emotionalism, arbitrary things, or very bad cosmologies and soteriologies which are essentially fiction, as they lack the evidence that things such as Christianity have. God is of an innate goodness, and the inverted would be evil, and evil is this pain and separation from one's creator, which brings only misfortunes, such as hell. Even the nihilists, they attempt to invent meaning without questioning "why even have meaning?", and just live in total domination and brutality, as is the logical conclusion without religion. I feel that even Eastern religions, at least Buddhism, fail at this afterlife as Buddhism is predicated on "happiness" or at least transcendence without the "why?", and only Christianity is sufficient in its dualism, because there is heaven and hell, and one does no want to be in hell as it described biblically, as it is the utmost suffering and torture. I mean why does the Marxist oppose oppression? What is the point? Why is oppression wrong, as it so claims? That is the problem, these question go unanswered, or they reinvent a metaphysics out of nothing, and essentially draft fictions, not truths.

64: I target the Marxists in particular because it is one of the big questions of our time. Every age has its big questions in philosophy, and for me, it is this leftism. And so their historiography is all wrong. 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.

65: What is this "common sense"? I am so alien to this concept, as I see only reason in Christ, and Christ alone, as there is no reason to follow anything else. Why even have civilization? My point exactly! All reasoning in any abstract or metaphysical sense must be derived from divinity to the core, or it is fraudulent kraterocracy. Beyond that, there is a necessity to understand human nature, human behavior, and proper readings of the Bible to discern how to govern and sustain what would be a theonomy, ideally.

66: 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.

67: Marxism, Islam, and secularism, with their consequences have been a disaster for humanity and to God. (Modelled after Ted Kaczynski).

68: Even primitive peoples exist in hierarchy. So many tribes have strongmen for leaders, kings, elders, priests, and even in the most primitive scenarios such as the Hadza, even they are beholden to their prestiged leaders. This "alienation" Marx spoke of, is amoral at best. Even tribal people have dead-end jobs, like farming and pastoralism. In fact, the boredom and such is a sign of unintelligence, that they do not understand necessity, nor morality, nor anything beyond their miniscule personal lives, as they are not latent philosophers. And furthermore, no "Revolution" would emerge, because people are too rivalrous, egotistical, and such. And if the Marxists were correct, they wouldn't need to "socialize" people, per se. In fact, their socialization is what I would call "enchantment", because, with every populist movement, they rely on the simple promises to feed into simple minds, and this requires some kind of leader, or a cabal of intelligent people. The Marxist utopia could never exist without totalitarianism, as they are fighting against the nature of mankind. The socialist state is fundamentally at eternal war with human nature, which is why the Marxists states always fail. Why would work ever be fulfilling? It is frustrating, it is hard, no matter physically or mentally, and we cannot expect this fulfillment, and the farmers are only happier because physical activity is so mentally beneficial, but even the farmers frustrate and anger, and live monotonously. In intentional communities, everyone wants to be there, and is ideologically invested in some way, like in Freetown Christiania, so obviously it is going to work because they want it to work, as there is no war on human nature. Although even Freetown Christiania has leaders, and the people there are largely unintelligent, but are enchanted, though voluntary, but voluntary is not equivalent to scholarly reason, and is more about an enchanted enthusiast. They are more like a movement of enchanted peoples living together. They are still human by nature, and so any attack on the settlement would be met with chaos, fear, and brutality, not collective action, as that only occurs when an intelligent leader enchants and commands. Though, I am not saying they, the sovereigns, emerge ex nihilo, rather, are indeed shaped by culture, but are simply more intelligent than others, and more charismatic and courageous.

69: To answer the question of things such as immigration, it only proves my point. Escapism, that is what these push and pull factors of immigration are, and are a perfect example of man's egotism.

70: Indeed, I affirm the immorality of homosexual behaviors, as well as polygamous behaviors, as well as drunken behaviors, as well as no-fault divorce. Promiscuity shall be the death of civilization, as there are grave psychological effects assoicated with fatherlessness and motherlessness, though motherlessness is less common, and I highly doubt that homosexual households are much better, though the study sizes are too small to be readily conclusiive, though the effects of fatherlessness, and motherlessness, are well documented, and attested to by Thomas Sowell, as well as various psychologists cited by Sowell.

71: Even the mere fact that history is obviously driven by sovereigns, all of whom originate the motions of history, that is clearly reflects human nature. From the tribal wars commanded by Shaka Zulu, to the assassination of Julius Caesar by Marcus Brutus. It clearly suggests the great many are dull, frightful, and easily enchanted by the great sovereigns of history.

72: Because collectives are ultimately groups of individuals. Not all of them agree, not all of them share any particular sense of fraternity in any sense beyond mere customs, because they are normative. In this case, man is, as always, egotistical and skittish, no matter his setting in civilization, lest he is the sovereign head of the leviathan.

73: Is an adult dressed as a baby to be defined as a baby? Obviously not, that is an adult. So how is a man dressed as a woman to be defined as a woman? Both apply the same logic of mere stereotyping. The proponents of the LGBT propose either bad metaphysics which don't hold up, or an argument of "whatever culture defines", or otherwise known as stereotypes. If a man dressed up as a baby, defecated in a diaper, and behaved as an infant, is he an infant? Not at all, this is objective, and so a man cross-dressing, by the logic of being unable to define things as mere stereotypes, is not a woman by any objective means. How would the cross-dressing man be any different from the infant-dressing man? And so, what is a woman? Well, by any remaining logic, it is "adult human female". One is a baby because he adheres to the stereotypes of one? No! So one is not a woman just because he adheres to stereotypes of a woman. It is the same logic applied, and so if one affirms the objectivity of one, they must affirm the other, otherwise they are not applying their logic consistently.

74: 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.

75: In response to my manifesto: And what to do about corrupt kings? I have come to a decision. A Godly constitution, a timeless constitution for the monarchy which declares what is write, and this document specifying subordination to the Bible, and to God, and to the Catholic Church, or whatever Church, whether Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Assyrian, is proven to be the true Church. I would say the Catholic Church, but the underlying fact is that Christ is risen, Christianity is true, and the Bible is preserved. I would say, better a charter for kingly behavior and moral principles bound by courts and such, as opposed to a "constitution", which is a misnomer, I suppose. Of course, this may not be a king, but rather, a president, a council, magistrates, or whatever is decieded upon for the City of God, as the theonomic order of things.

76: 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.

77: Writing fictions is amoral, generally, unless it is promoting immorality, or promoting morality. If it is something like Dadaist or surrealism, then it means nothing beyond preference, which is absolutely fine. Not every action is required to be in devotion to God, but one must follow the moral law to be saved, and beyond that, one may do whatever, including writing fictions. This applies to the arts in general. Immoral fictions, like the Satanic Bible by Anton LeVay are wrong per God, but something like Flatland by Edwin Abbott Abbott is amoral in nature, though I have no read Flatland in quite some time, though beyond such pedantry, my point about the arts are thus.

78: I feel Lenin's vanguardism is actually the greatest affirmation of the masses being dull and without collective agency, not merely as deprivation or deficit but by nature of man, that even Lenin had to cope and recognize their impotence, fright, and skittishness, and essentially reconcile that Marx was wrong. This "trade-union consciousness" was just some attempt to reconcile the true nature of man. I am not a Leninist, obviously, but I would go further and say that mass consciousness, in any form, just does not exist at all, and people are essentially just individuals in groups, all of them as egotistical as the other, even observed in primitive peoples, such as leadership in the Hadza, while informal, is indeed present. Suggesting that humanity is chaotic without leaders. Communism itself rests on faulty foundations as a religion, and is without substantiation beyond mere baseless assumptions. Mentioned in prior aphorisms, Marxist states must essentially war with human nature, while laissez-faire, conservative states accommodate human nature to achieve flourishing. Of course, the wounds of human nature are merely destructive, especially things like promiscuity and homosexuality.

79: "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.

80: 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 of City of God. And so, culture must encourage positive behaviors to ensure the prosperity of future generations, and ensure the freedom of the markets to inflict prolonged prosperity among the City of God.

81: Humanity is always bound by delusions, that humans could be deified, and still cling to meaning as if it exists autonomous of God. Although the Christian states of the Middle Ages had a reason not to become like the True Tyrant due to their Christian dispositions. And essentially human civilization has been operated under some religion until very recently, and by "very recently", I mean around 80 years ago, as that brings us to the post-War rise in this sort of very obviously faulty secularism which became a global order in which the secular vanguard states bully other states, like Vladimir Putin's cabinet, into adopting meaninglessness. The dominant state religions today are communism (the liberal theology practiced by the Chinese state), secular humanism, Islam, and neutered "Christianity", or otherwise liberal theologies that premises of meaningless liberalism. Any movement away from God will lead into some kind of nihilism. As there is nothing without God. Many nihilists will foolishly cling to assumptions of strength equating to virtue, while denying the True Tyrant. The secularists will persist, evermore unable to answer "why should humanity exist? Why should anything exist? Why not destroy everything? If there is no eternity, then expediting the process of extinction is as equally just as kindness!". Modern society often is about bullying people into this sham of "empathy", or about assuming value, baselessly. At least modern statehood. Nothing in modernity is moral beyond the Christians, only the theologically conservative Christians who truly follow God, not these pseudosecularists like Methodists. There is no reason why anything should exist, and so, if the True Tyrant were to rise, the only objections of the secularists would be force and coercion to uphold their lies, and defeat the True Tyrant themselves, and to impose what order? Their arbitrary preference... Just as the True Tyrant does, but the only difference is that the True Tyrant does not delude himself with base secular assumptions, or even attempt to construct meaning.

82: 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.

83: There has never been mass movement in history. Man is frightful, skittish, egotistical; driven by baser impulses and sin. All movement, from the American civil rights movement, to Congress' protests against British authority in India, to the motions of the Red Army in the Russian revolution. All of them perfectly substantiate man as an organism with a nature. If man were not a creature which behaves in this manner innately, then why is it so omnipresent, even among primitive peoples, who war and conflict at the behest of their chiefs? The mere fact that all great bands of men all possess a leader, alongside the very obvious fact that men are not latent philosophers, and are indeed rather suggestable, clearly suggest the servility and vacuousness of most. There is not a single instance in history, or prehistory, of the collectivism that Marx spoke of. Indus Valley citadels, to the royal palaces of the Ashanti, to the harems which surround chimpanzee alphas. The fact of the matter is evident. No matter what riot there is, it is all non-political, or organized by higher forces, and merely supports my claims of man's innate indirection and chaos. The storming of the Bastille? All members of the mob were of some kind of movement and organization, albeit externally by external incitement. The LA riots? Organized gangs, with leaders, committing crimes. They were led, not in any finite way, but provided direction by some sovereign heads. If liberal democracy reflected mass "rationality" or "consciousness", why are charismatics, and not the scholars, the sovereign heads? The Marxists would say "false consciousness", but seeing as the Milgram experiment, the prior evidence of men all revolutions being the matter of sovereign decision, and even Lenin himself begrudgingly accepting the stupidity of the masses, then I think it is obvious that this notion is incorrect.

84: 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.

85: Something "is", but there is nothing to derive from this "is" beyond the "is", and so "ought" is nothing, really, because why would one care how something "is"? How do they know this "is" is even prescribing anything? Or how is it known that this "is" would even be an authority? Why even care? That is my point. It is only logical with God, heaven and hell. As it is readily available, "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 one would not desire hell, as it is not a matter of perception, and it is eternal. Whereas heaven, or eternal life, is the opposite, infinite goodness via salvation.

86: The idea is that all "collectives" are truly mere groups 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.

87: 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.

88: 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?

89: MentisWave described religion as "philosophy + God", and I find this to somewhat unfulfilling, as the matter is more intricate, in that God is vital for everything at its foundations, and the entire reason civilization exists is for some moral purpose, and must logically be sustained, however, when it lacks the divine foundations, it would be no better than the True Tyrant's reign. I would say that the summation of religion as "philosophy + God" somewhat demeans the totality and full revelation of God as a being which everything descends as creation, or in the case of morality, divine truth, and philosophy exists as a means of explaining how to live in accordance to this, with all application in life connecting to the Bible. Otherwise, I do not entirely disagree with such a definition, but it is better to acknowledge the totalism of religion, Christianity in particular.

90: That's why I disagree when someone like former Pope Francis says "we hope Hell is empty", because it is a misunderstanding of Hell that is more akin to the writings of Dante, as opposed to the full deprivation, depravity, and discommunion of Hell which is going to be as painful as possible. Demons aren't running amok with pitchforks, but are suffering as well, which is why Legion begs not to be banished back into Hell. Hell is not a place to rule, not even Satan rules Hell, or anything for that matter.

91: The Old Testament makes a clear distinction between combatants and non-combatants, and Moses's wrath to the non-combatant Midianites was an act of immorality by Moses, without demeaning the value of the just war, as Augustine reminds us. And in the New Testament, it is further elaborated upon that innocent peoples are guilty of no crimes, even if their contemporaries, or other peoples within their tribe, have done terrible things, which is why Cornelius the Centurion was able to become Christian, and why Jews are allowed to become Christians. And so, it is wrong to judge others collectively. This is not to say groups cannot act with immorality. If a band of people are murdering and destroying, they are immoral as a group, as they are all committing the same crimes of immorality, but my point is that, to those who are without transgression or immorality, they are not to be persecuted.

92: Remove the "Judeo-" from Christian, because Judaism is a false religion as well which is distinct from the Second Temple which was succeeded by the Church, whether Catholic or Orthodox, and contemporary Judaism emerged around the 2nd to 6th century, finalized by the 6th century, and is a medieval faith, like Islam, and often has more in convergence with Islam than with Christianity, albeit far less violent and sexually degenerate than Islam. Although, the Talmud does express awful things about children, goys, and Christ, and it is appalling how it could be considered as spiritually high and authoritative. The Christians are the Israelites, and the Church is Israel, and the Christians cannot support a modern state predicated on the rejection of God in Jesus Christ. When Christ strengthened the moral law, and fulfilled the Mosaic Law, He had commanded the nations to behave with justness, and for just kings to rule, and so it is indefensible to support an abhorrent state such as Israel, or engage in the heresy of dispensationalism. Now, as Christians, we are not to persecute the innocent, and to proselytize, and warn, in the attempt to aid others to salvation, and it is certain, upon this earth, that the sons shall not bear the sins of their father, and shall be innocent before the law, but man is still faced with his original sin, which wounds our good natures. If one's father murders another man, the son does not inherit the murder, but both father and son are born with original sin, as all humans are, universally.

93: 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.

94: The Church condones private property and kingship, as well as mutualistic economies, which is what liberal economics provides, though only functioning to the benefit of the state when adequate moral law is applied. Being opulent and a business magnate is not at all indefensible, but it is when they act without morality is when it becomes a problem. Socialism is not at all good, as it conflicts with the condonation and licit nature of private property, and often leads to stagnation and immorality, especially if the state is deified. Of course, the Church and the kingship must be separate, distinct from eachother, albeit that the state must derive all moral codes from the Church. The Church condones, the state obeys, while keeping the institutions distinct in the defense of the Church against the perversions of earthly, though necessary, human politics.

95: And social liberalism is this sort of social disease, as when adopted on a widespread scale which destroys the family, it shall yield ruinous consequences, such as in the African-American population of the United States, per "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by Thomas Sowell, or "Life Without Father" by David Popenoe. This is why social liberalism is a social disease, as it leads to the decay of civilization. And so, if there is to be a theonomic kingdom, what I have referred to as the "City of God" in partial reference to Augustine, then it is a moral imperative to sustain this City, and so it is to be economically liberal to promote flourishing and innovation, and the family is to be protected to prevent civil atrophy. The king, or president, or doge, or consul, is vital for defense, and this is known. Without a leader, there is no civilization, there is nothing. Leadership is not negotiable or avoidable, it will emerge by the charismatics, or by the violent, or by the moral, or by the cruel, because man is egotistical, skittish, and frightful, and shan't organize without sovereign command, or behave justly without moral law, imposed by the sovereign. Carlyle was very correct in noting how sovereigns move history, as there has never been a war, or a revolution, or a coup without leadership to spawn movements, to proselytize, propagandize, and command.

96: In response to Camus, why not die? Obfuscating the question with "yet I live" means nothing, there a clear ought-is problem. Why must Sisyphus be happy? Why not die? Shake your fist all you like at absurdity, there is no reason not to embrace death if we live in a godless universe.

97: One is either a male or a female in this life, and simply mutilating your body does not entail the emergence of the opposite sex, but rather, mere mangled genitalia of they sex they were born as. This transgender phenomena is merely one of mental illness in body dysmorphia and depression, and is a quite recent event at the scale it is occuring in our modern day, and as it is imposed upon children. The fact of the matter is that the Church condemns these things, and it is clear that from Genesis, a man could never become a woman. If one is merely reducing one's gender/sex to mere stereotype, then this is applied with everything, such as an adult claiming to be a child if they behave in the stereotype of a child. That is the problem with the reduction to stereotypes, the denial of objective reality. These matters such as the Jewish Bar Mitsvah are simply matters of recognizing the stage of life, confirming that a man is an adult human male, and so, as expected from these rites of passage, like in many Amazonian peoples, or even among European peoples, the idea is that a man ought to behave a certain way or express a sort of unshakenness, without claiming that a man is mere stereotype, reducable to stereotypes, or that a man can become a woman by simply removing his genitals, which is not even removal, per se, of the sort of "root" or the manner in which the genitals exists, as it is the deformation of what already exists, and not the creation of something new.

98: Fatherlessness is a very errosive force. Dave Popenoe's "Life Without Father" and Thomas Sowell's "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" very clearly demonstrate the necessity for fatherhood in a child's life, however, as Thomas Sowell clearly states, motherlessness is an equally terrible sort of upbringing which has similar effects to fatherlessness, the great effect being the increased propensity for crime and academic underachievement, which, if adopted on a widespread scale, such as with welfare policies or media inculturation, it could bring about a new generation which shall yield the ruin of civilization. This has already occured in the African-American population of the United States. This notion of "systemic racism" has been debunked quite thoroughly, especially in the modern day, and with the evidence of the success of Nigerian immigrants and Asian-Americans, who are disproportionately successful in the United States, and have been for quite some time, clearly suggesting that, as Thomas Sowell suggests, the problem lies not in the state, but in the culture, and this is not to say the state has nothing to do with this, rather the opposite, as the welfare state encouraged a destruction of the family. And so, any destruction of the family unit, whether homosexual, whether under single-parents, or otherwise all lead to detrimental effects upon civilization. And as for homosexuality, it is either a case of fatherlessness or motherlessness in children raised in such homes, and so we may readily imply that these matters are detrimental as well, though admittedly the direct observations are sparse due to the fact that the sample sizes are much too small to make a meaningful conclusion, and so the best implication is that it is bad for civilization, and the higher rate of venerial diseases is most certainly not positive.

99: Only in God is there an answer to the matters of the True Tyrant and the Revolution of Me, and any type of egoism or collectivism. All reason exists subordinate to God and His supremacy as Being itself, and Goodness itself, in total perfection. The highest aspiration is communion in God, no matter what career or class we are constituent of. And all morality exists in God and in God alone, and these matters of heaven and hell, for those of us unpersuaded by the love of God alone.

100: 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.

101: Dalmatians

102: 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.

103: This "true consciousness" of material acquisition has never existed. Among primitive peoples, there is culture, leadership, inegality, et cetera, and so how does the Marxist know that his view is not just another ideology, and the vanguard is not just another elite imposing ideology? What if true consciousness is Ego and the exploitation of everyone in the pursuit of personal material wealth against all who dare deprive the Ego of material? Or that laissez-faire economics is not the true consciousness? Both are materialistic, and rest upon the same ontology of materialism. And why is peace so good? Why is material so good? Why acquire material at all? Why do anything? What if the highest goal is death?

104: Capitalism is not something negative, as it is simply the buying, trading, and selling of goods, and services, with contract labor, and voluntarism, with any problems emerging as human problems, and a life devoid of morality. Capitalism is not a system, in this case, but the lack of one, as innovation flourishes from untethered human ingenuity, with the problem of human sin as well, and in that case, the government mustn't regulate the market, but regulate the sin. The state exists to uphold morality and defend the peoples of Christian lands.

105: The problem with many contemporary criticisms of religion and capitalism is essentially a big projection and cope. Many simply desire to attribute the failures of men to Christ, or to markets, without realizing that humans can only be moral in God, and the markets are a reflection of humanity in the fact that the free market is the absence of intervention in the economy, and is thus not a system, per se, but the absense of one; due to this, humans simply blame God and blame markets as opposed to reflecting upon metaethics and realizing that God is a prerequisite before anything else. Thus, the failure of the markets and of justness are the doings of fallible individual humans devoid of God in their hearts.

106: If there is no afterlife, no judgement, and no resurrection, then there is no reason not to destroy as much as possible, and to slaughter at will, for we all shall die, and there is no eternity in a godless universe. And so, Zizek's fondness for Christianity is mere parasitism, and he has no reason to follow. Zizek has no reason to follow even his own ideology, or any way to know that material is good, or why not to destroy everyone and everything. If the world is godless, the only law is one of kraterocracy.

107: Many Marxists fail to understand that everything, every product, every processed material, descends from something, and everything costs money in labor. Labor that is contracted, of course, as when there is forced labor, such as in cacao farms, the problem is not with "capitalism", which is simply a means of buying, selling, and trading goods and services, but rather it is a human problem. And so, the answer is not the abolition of property and markets, which simply allocates the problems of humanity to an omnipotent state, often an atheist one, who monopolizes the exploitation and cruelty, rather, the solution is the regulation of sin, and a firmly Christian state.

108: The modern world is just kraterocracy, no? Why is Chinese material dialectics, American democracy, or European liberalism so good? Why said that? Why would we follow these? Why should civilization even exist? Or better yet, why should humanity exist? Why not die? It is circular to say we exist because we do, as there is no reason for it, and no reason not to prefer domination and slaughter to take primacy, and destroy everything? Why not? Why is that wrong? And so, as it seems, the modern world order is simply kraterocracy: people with no concept of morality and civilization ruling by their delusions of ultimate reality without consideration for the Creator.

109: We follow objective reality so we may be saved, or at least, we care about what is objective to follow God on God's terms by what He means. When God declares that we are not to murder, we follow God's definition, and when God declares that we are not to sodomize, we go by God's definition, otherwise we are not following what God means, and are behaving with immorality. And beyond this, the objective reality must then be used to further the longevity of a just civilization and just kingship defended in the Bible, and commended by the Orthodox Church. Such as upholding the family, which is vital for civilization, as the king must do so to prevent the civilization from falling or degrading, which demeans the purpose of the state, which is to protect the innocent. In this sense, all in existence which is not made by man is defined by an objective definition in God, who creates all, and all human endeavors to define are actually attempts to discern the creations of God and discover how God made these things. We do not retreat into solipsism because then we would be unaware of the moral law, which is necessary for salvation.

110: "Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything" I feel this question is quite flawed, as the premise is ambiguous. What is the question? The meaning of these things? Why they were created? Why they exist? And they all mean different things, as the meaning to life would not be the meaning or purpose of the universe. And as for this vague, totalizing "everything", does that not include the previous subjects? So the question is redundant, and reducing this wouldn't help answering the question, because it is so vague. My problem is "what is the question?". I suppose the ultimate question is "What do you get when you multiply six by nine?", but that itself is dubious. What is the initial question even asking? There is no specification of "meaning", and so it could just be that the questions is inquiring about natural process and function as much as it inquires about meaning. Of course, if the question is about meaning, the ultimate reason for these things is God's creation, and the meaning to life is to worship God, behave morally, and attain eternal life through Christ. In this sense, the question is easy, but that is assuming that the question is about meaning, and not process. If it is a procedural question, then everything exists from a point of origin, and expands outward from there is cosmic and earthly procedure which moves the world, and the ecosystems, and the climates, and is just the objective world and universe, the totality of everything in this universe. Though if "everything" includes everything outside of the universe, then the question is more about God, for He exists beyond the universe, but his meaning? That is mysterious. His process? Mysterious beyond the nature that is revealed to us. And so, because of this, the initial question, "Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything", is unanswerable, and it would be better to ask a better, less ambiguous. Well what is the ultimate question? I feel it is quite subjective. Behave morally, behave justly, and follow Christ, but this is more of a statement based in biblical theology, and not a question, but there are questions within it. Is the question about meaning? Is the question about function? And why is one of any more or less value than the other? I suppose the meaning of life, and understanding the theistic origin is important for those who do not already know of salvation, and the meaning of life is God, and so that question could take primacy, but the question itself is not necessary to understand this.

111: I would say human nature is objective and knowable, especially in great groups, such as in wars, and riots, and history, and such, where man's nature is quite evident in the manner of existence, and further elaborated upon in Genesis, which demonstrates man's nature, and his wounds. Through human history, it is better concluded that history is driven by sovereign forces, from the Haitian Slave Revolt, the American Revolution, French Revolution, Taping Rebellion, Russian Revolution, Russo-Ukrainian War, American Civil Rights movement, Indian Independence, Crimean War, Iran-Contra Affair, and otherwise. Even today, the great, dull many are driven by populists and pop-culture, and this is a consequence of materialism, for their dull minds respond to material gain and earthly benefit, which is itself of no moral primacy beyond a baser, sinful function of men who have sought to worship material. Even the LA riots were organized by gang leaders, the sole rationaln actors in this. Riots themselves, when spontaneous, are a perfect exemplar of man's egotism, materialism, rivalrous disposition, and guidelessness without sovereign actors to impose their will, or a higher will, and this is why riots are just about individuals stealing and attacking the innocent, often times. This is what occurred with the February Revolution, which began as a simple riot, and then molded into an army by Bolshevik forces, who sought control with their organized Red Army. To clarify, these sovereign actors are individuals, whether one or a cabal of a very small amount, small enough to where they shan't form a crowd, and millions of idiotic voices flood with terrible ideas, each obsessed with their own vision. Even among such cabals, the individual with the most aggressive personality often dominates.

112: Marx is wrong, blanketly. He elevated material gain to the highest moral imperative, just as the libertarians. In fact, the libertarians and the Marxists are ontologically the same, differing only in attitudes of states, the individual, and resource distribution. The masses only desire what is in their own selfish, materialistic interests, and this manner of "socialization", or the totalitarian state re-educating people, is actually attempts from the communists to change human nature, and try to nullify human sin through improper means. The Marxist could not exist without totalitarianism, and could not exist without massive immorality. The only difference between the sin of the Marxist state and a liberal state is how democratized the sin is.

113: What makes Marxism any different from Mazdakism, or Sufism, or Islam in general? Marxism requires this elaborate socialization and collectivization, and yet this doesn't even work, and is not conducive to quality economics. I mean this more ontologically, as they all make claims they are unable to substantiate, unlike with Christianity, which is uniquely focused on evidence and history. Even if man was communal at some point in prehistory, so what? Human sacrifice and ritual warfare were equally practiced, albeit not universally, just as pure communalism was most definitely not practiced universally, as evident by the Maasai, who derive status and wealth from their cows, and the ownership of such. So what if some were communal? Man is fallen anyhow, and negates no sin, there was most certainly still conflict, theft, and corruption, so why elevate communalism to such virtue above these things? Collectivism is also immoral, per the Orthodox teachings on property rights and mutualism. So why not be corrupt? Who not slaughter? Why are these so bad? This goes back to my point, morticize humanity, because one may easily, and arbitrarily, elevate dying and ritual death to the ultimate virtue under this communist model, and so, everyone should die, because death is seen as a virtue, arbitrarily. In this regard, who is to say class consciousness is not death! So obscured by the hegemony of life! Because the Marxist lacks any coherent reason, and his assumptions are all arbitrary. Why is community higher than death? No reason, of course. Why should humanity exist? Why survive? Why? Simply asserting a Camus-esque argument means nothing, as it is circular, and does not answer the question of "why should?" and "why not?", as it exposes an ontology indistinguishable from pure egoistic, violent nihilism. Saying "we should live" and "we should die" have no difference between them, ontologically. Why is one any better or worse? Why is living so good? Who said these are valuable? Who said anything was valuable? Why should we listen to that? Of course, all of these answers are better answered in God, and in apologetics.

114: Alienation? All work is unfulfilling. It is work. What else would it be beyond a job obligated for function? Not every tribal man wants to fetch water. Is all work not in such a manner? People doing the jobs which must be done. Of course, Marx never worked, and so this is quite dubious. Not to say that he must, but that this claim is largely baseless. If someone feels estranged, why is this wrong? All work is hard, and it all must be done, as everything comes from somewhere. And if this is a mere redundancy for "exploitation", the problem is not the markets, but the state control of them. Exploitation? A problem of humans being sinful, as this would equally occur under socialism, albeit more industrialized by the state. Class inequality? Why is this wrong, first? But second, if this is just a redundancy for "exploitation", then it is answered. Furthermore, it isn't like there is not a massive inequality between the general-secretary and the proles. Even in "successful" communism like Catalonia, there was still a distinction between the leaders and the led, and there were still problems, and forseeably, these would have continued into the future if the Spanish Civil War had not ended as it had.

115: If class consciousness is about broad material acquisition, then laissez-faire economics are superior in every way imaginable, seeing as how socialism has only led to stagnation and furthered poverty. So what if class consciousness is capitalist? Of course, why is class consciousness even good? And of course, the ills of capitalism, as a caricature, are actually better attributed to state forces. And so the telos ought to be the regulation of sinfulness, not positive actions, such as markets, but the products, and of the behaviors, while excluding the quite ridiculous idea of the abolition of the markets. Ridiculous in the sense that one would have a socialist problem of stagnation.

116: My view of economics is more utilitarian. Liberal economics are quite efficient, yet human sin must be regulated. What is the point of the state? What is the point of existence? Well it is God, and the purpose of the state is the propagation of Christianity, the protection of the innocent, and moral, benevolent governance. Liberal economics merely ensures that property, a type of moral imperative, is protected, and that there is sufficient innovation, and wealth to ensure the longevity of the state, while the state itself regulates the sin, and the harm facilitated from the sin, while ensuring the markets remain productive.

117: And how is a worker contracted by a company, or another individual, entitled to what is produced, when they signed a contract, which states they do not own what they produced? They agreed to sell their production for a wage, and I fail to see the theft in the transaction. Everything comes from something else. The socialist state does not magically materialize what was previously immaterial, they just give people terrible wages, or establish labor camps, or some kind of involuntary action. Everything comes from something, so why should the base producers of raw material be expected to give away their production for free? And if they are under a company, the workers sell their labor for wages and compensation. Where is the infinite source of ready-made material that these Marxists apparently believe in? The owners are often the hardest workers of them all, as he bears the greatest risks for failure, and the biggest losses, and must do all of the high level management that make him lose everything. Even so, let us presuppose they do nothing: so what? Why is that wrong? Especially if the worker sells his labor for a wage? Though this naively ignores the truth that these people must be quite laborious mentally, working to sustain business, and in a world without state intervention in mechanisms, compete to drive down prices and increase wages.

118: The disposition towards the "natural" is one which entails respecting and honoring the creation of God. And so, matters such as homosexuality, polygamy, and transgender behaviors are unnatural because they are a sinful perversion of the manner that man was created in Eden. Furthermore, a disability, and correcting a disability with aids such as glasses are not at all a perversion of man's nature, as these disabilities exist because of the Fall, and correcting them is encouraged, as they do not violate human nature, which is defined in God.

119: The state exists out of moral imperatives, and justifies its existence with morality, whether real theistic morality or arbitrary secular morality, and these moral imperatives serve the benefit and welfare of the subjects, while ensuring prolonged existence to further provide benefit to the subjects. This mechanism of prolonged existence comes in the form of charters, constitutions, and strongmen, those who inhibit or expand the state for further moral imperative.

120: I would say the Spanish colonization of the Americas was mostly just, only becoming ill when immoral people were beholding the subjects to cruelty. Colonization and civilizing missions are not wrong, and only become wrong when the missions come at the expense of morality. Just war against barbarity is not evil.

121: "Is morality intrinsic to the state, or is it instrumental — a tool to legitimize coercion?" Intrinsic. The Confucian kings believe themselves the Son of Heaven, and the Christian kings know of their moral obligations to their subjects, Marxist kings believe collectivism to be the highest good, and liberal kings believe themselves to have moral obligations to uphold constitutions. And what is coercion? Why is it wrong? Not that I am saying it is in unjust application, but that my point is that morality exists in God, and in presupposition, any king which is not Godly is either amoral or immoral, but even the amoral and immoral kings believe themselves to be just, even if they are not, and so he feels an obligation to his subjects, from the liberals, to the Marxists, to the federalists, to the traditionalists, they all feel a moral obligation to their subjects. All states engage in this contemporary definition of "coercion", as there isn't a state which permits murder, the taking of an innocent life. There is not one, even if, under secular conclusions, there is no reason not to take anyone's life for any reason, but arbitrary secular governments ban murder, for some reason in their false morality. But the point is that they fulfill their obligations to their subjects by persecuting murderers and thieves.

122: I prefer to use the term "king", as "states" are often quite plural in interpretations. The Federal Government of the United States is diverse, with liberals, social conservatives, socialists, libertarians, populists, et cetera, and so "king" emphasizes the singular view of the just sovereign, or at least sovereign who believes himself just.

123: Why have civilization? Why is the state good? Why listen to evolution? Why care about evolution if it is simply process? Why survive? Why not go extinct? Why should we live? Evolution exists? So what? Why be a good organism? Why not destroy everything? Why is the imposition of one will over the other good or bad? Why exist? Why is reason innately good? Who said humans have dignity or any value above the common ant? Why listen to emotions? Why not hurt people? Why listen to empathy? Why is empathy good? Why not slaughter? Of course, petty circular reasoning "because we do!" Or "to revolt!" Answers none of the questions, because destruction would still be no higher or lower than creation, and means ultimately nothing. All of these answers exclusively emerge in religion, and the argument is best reduced to "who has the strongest evidence?", at which point, Christianity is in the lead. Reason is good because it helps us undeserved how we humans ought to follow God and govern, but reason is not independently valuable. In this regard, there is no reason to be an Enlightenment liberal, or an Egoist nihilist, or to prefer one over the other.

124: Transgenderism is the voluntary perversion of human nature, while disability is the inherited physical, or psychological, ill upon human nature, and so, correcting disabilities is just and commendable, while transgenderism is the voluntary perversion of nature, albeit without changing the nature, but attempting to, as the ontologies go unchanged, but the matter of transgenderism is one which attempts to defile creation, without changing ontologies, but the act is in defiance to God. While disability is an involuntary ill from the Fall, and correcting it is just. God does not put souls in the wrong body, that is a petulant, or otherwise clumsy view of God. This was rebutted by Tertullian, who spoke of this radical separation of the soul and ontology from the created world. When disabilities occur, they are grafted upon the already created individual, so depression, club foot, or otherwise are mere distortions of the manner in which God created the individual, while something so radical ad to suggest one is born in the wrong body goes beyond this graft, and into quite Gnostic ideas, already refuted by Tertullian and Irenaeus. Of course, the sole interpretive authority is the Eastern Orthodox Church, who were founded by God. Church scholars agree, of course, in this view, as the Russian Orthodox Church has published works on this matter. As for the intersex people. they are deformed people, but their souls still reflect either a man or a woman, and it is a matter of discerning the deformity on a case by case basis by discerning the genetic and physical attributes. In this case, discovering what the deformity is, and correcting it if necessary. Even so, an in-tact man or woman who are not deformed in such a way have their souls married to their body, male or female, and it is impossible to change, as any attempts to deform the body unsuccessfully change one's nature, which is married to the soul, that is a sinful act, much like homosexuality is a sin in violation of nature, just as a man was never meant to try and defy God in mutilating his body to affirm a disordered behavior.

125: History is best defined as the matters which shape a nation or humanity, and is contingent upon leaders commanding forces and politics in accordance to their perceptions, or in accordance with reality. There has never been a historical event in which a leader had not initiated and initially ruled, from Muhammed to Hong Xiuquan, to Jean-Jacques Dessalines, to Moses, to Henry Kissenger, Wat Tyler, to Ronal Reagan. All history is a matter of leaders battling their ideas.

126: I think the Euthyphro dilemma is inherently flawed. If one were an Ash'arite, and believed God was arbitrary, they would have no reason not to follow anyway, despite the fact, because there would still be Paradise and al-Shaytan, and so I feel the apologetics for Christianity are best a means of evidence, both historical and logical, against Marxism, atheism, Islam, liberalism, et cetera. Obviously, Christianity is correct, and God is Goodness, bypassing the dichotomy presented in the dilemma, but this clarification is not a reaction to the dilemma, but a clarification of God's nature as perfect, and thus perfectly Good, for sin is not a thing or a substance, but a corruption of good, which God is unable to succumb due to his perfection. And I reject the notion this is circular, because God exists with aseity, and his attributes define him and logically preclude the possibility of evil, both in the nature of God, and in the nature of sin. But back to my point, even if command were "arbitrary", there is still a substantive reason to follow it. It cannot be circular, since God is the source of absolutely everything created, and there is a reason to follow Him for this. Circular reasoning implies that one can replace the variable. "I live because I live", or "I kill because I kill", but with God, it is "I follow because I love God. Why? He saves me from Hell.", but God himself exists with aseity and absolute eternity.

127: Humans are not naturally collective in this sense that we have "consciousness", rather, that we are all social individuals within an objective existence, and the ego is naturally present, thus why all peoples possess leaders, and why riots are often mere bursts of noise, egotism, rivalry, and herdism. Man was never collective, and so why must he be collectivized? For material acquisition? Better material outcomes emerge under liberal economics. Even so, if material acquisition is so paramount, why not slaughter and genocide to attain whatever the individual desires? Why not? Why even exist?

128: And how does the Marxist know that living is not a bourgeois trick? That one must kill everyone before killing themselves to be liberated, and true consciousness is death? Why is life good? Of course, this idea of "consciousness" is very silly, because man has never been in collectives, rather, individuals, no matter how social they are, as none think alike in every regard, and popular opinion is simply whatever the culture is, but this is not a false consciousness, because there was never a true consciousness. If true consciousness is in material, then slaughter, rape, and pillage to achieve all of the material one desires, why must it be collective? Why not the Class of Me? And if it must be broad, then capitalism is superior, as socialism has always led to stagnation, and has never worked in the long term, because it conflicts with humanity and how he naturally exists as an individual among other individuals. And intentional communities, like Freetown Christiania, only work because everyone wants to be there, and is not forcibly "socialized", like in communist states.

129: Is it not circular reasoning, Marxism is? "I have class consciousness, because I understand Marxism, and so I have class consciousness because I read Marx". How does one know material gain, or anything of the sort, are even class consciousness? Why not go back to my initial point? "And how does the Marxist know that living is not a bourgeois trick? That one must kill everyone before killing themselves to be liberated, and true consciousness is death?" Thus, suicide is REAL consciousness.

130: But again, man is not, and has never been, naturally "collective", but individuals among others. Primitive communism has never existed, and man has never been in this noble savagery, instead, he has existed in war, and in slavery, and in hierarchy, and has always existed in this state. Furthermore, who is to say material is so good? Why is emotion so good? Why feel anything? Why is oppression wrong? What even is oppression? Most people under free market economies live in middle class environments, and the ills to the market, and the cause of inefficiency are derived from the state. Simply saying "class consciousness" proves nothing. But again, who said material is so good? Why survive? Why not die?

131: It is the obligation of the Christian leaders and the missionaries to convert kings to Christ, and everyone to Christ in general. Meanwhile, a Christian king must govern justly, and must subordinate his presuppositions to the Church. The angels exist in hierarchy, as does mankind, and this is just. All things exist in hierarchy, often with mutual liability. The more broad a category becomes, the more immutable it is, and God, as Being itself, is the most Good, the most perfect, the most immutable, aseitic being. In this sense, humans exist in hierarchy, which serves functions, only incorrect when sin and the indefense of the innocent permeate. Of course, immutability is not broad morally, for God is the creator, and perfect, and creation is good, albeit wounded. And God, being perfect and perfectly immutable, is good in his nature. Kingship is vital, as is property, filial piety, and the moral obligations entitled to the subjects of the king. Kings who know not of Christ and submission to the Church must know by information, and if all other options for the kings have been exhausted, then it is permissible for the Christian kings to engage in just war. In a metaphysical context, kings who do not act justly shall suffer judgement, and shall have rejected God, and pushed himself into hell. Only in the initial fear of hell is there meaning, which ensues the subsequent love of God for his love in saving us from death. Without afterlife, there is nothing and no reason to follow, but only in knowledge of Christ's love in eternal life do we know to fear hell. Hell is not God's dungeon, rather, the place God saves us from, and it is vital to follow God, and to evade the corruption of sin, even when falling short before God, repenting. And Christianity has evidence for morality in the resurrection of Christ, unlike Marxism, Islam, liberalism, Kantianism, et cetera.

132: Conquest is not theft, it does not entail the landowners are being deprived of their land, rather, that they shall be administrated differently. If it is a tribal situtation where non have land, then it is the land of the chieftain, king, or other such titles. The Orthodox Church has never considered conquest to be theft, and they, as the highest inerpretors of the Bible, with apostolic succession and ancient tradition, take primacy in these matters.

133: What is the point of polemics? I suppose the point is to proselytize Christ, and refute other ideas to better turn people to Christ. For only in Christ is there reason. And so, my refutations of Marxism and secularism, and defense of capitalism, kingship, and an opposition to collectivism is indeed about documenting arguments against these false faith in the benefit of furthering Christianity and the salvation of as many as possible.

134: I disagree with the notion man can discern morality exclusively from nature, because one may see the beasts of the world cannibalizing and slaughtering each other and conclude man must behave in this regard. I see man as wholly fallen, so wounded he even ignores the law written upon his heart, and requires God.

135: This whole notion of a "consciousness", whether for the Aryans, the workers, or any denomination of mankind all presume that material conditions are somehow good, or that they mean anything. Why shouldn't death be the highest aspiration? Why not war? Why not? And here is where these ideologies smuggle in theism. I feel the ultimate aspiration is attaining salvation in Christ, unity and communion with Christ, and acting with morality defined in God.

136: I feel the ultimate question, the first order of everything, would be "why should anything exist?". What is the point of existence? Why not die? Why not destroy? Why listen to nature? Why listen to anything? Of course, through the abyss, I have concluded Christianity is the answer, in this case, all exists as creation, and wrong things pervert this creation, for creation is good, albeit heavily wounded and only redeemable in God. A good line of questioning is why listen to evolution? Why care about evolution if it is simply process? Why survive? Why not go extinct? Why should we live? Evolution exists? So what? Why be a good organism? Why not destroy everything? Why is the imposition of one will over the other good or bad? Why exist? Why is reason innately good? Who said humans have dignity or any value above the common ant? Why listen to emotions? Why not hurt people? Why listen to empathy? Why is empathy good? Why not slaughter? And of course, the only answer is God. All morality is evaluated in God, or it is nothing, and arbitrary. All ideologies, like liberalism and Marxism, attempt to reinvent the wheel of what is known, and what the moral law is, and they come to wrong conclusions which focus on things which have no value, like "liberty" or "material conditions", which lack innate value. There is no reason not to destroy material, to enslave, to conquer, and to pillage if God does not exist.

137: Why is material even good? I mean this the sense of heralding material as the spire of morality. But why is having material innately good? Why is survival good? Why should humanity exist? Why is liberation, the Marxist sense, good? Why not oppress? Why not hoard? Why is this wrong? Of course, the Marxists have no answers because they know not of morality. Material is not something to be innately aspired for, just as the Apostles occupied immense poverty and hardship, for the ultimate attainment is in communion with Christ. Being wealthy is not wrong, owning property is just, the problems emerge when a lack of charity and moral fidelity is being applied, but the problems emerge elsewhere as well, such as in lust, greed, envy, pride, hate, and broader evil which seeks to pervert human nature. Many matters in our postmodern age are simply moral matters, many of which are too materialist. People are valuing material above Christ, and just want material or material distribtution, deifying material for what? It all means nothing. All of the problems in the world are not about ideology, but of human sin. While the world is created good and wounded by evil, it is not moral to aspire for material above anything else.

138: Moral ambiguity means nothing, really. There is no "morally gray", only good and bad, and bad people who do good things, the action is good, but there overall actions are bad. The world is fallen, so Good, but heavily wounded, which means there is evil and sin, but there is still good in it, all of which is distinct. Sinning is an action, and a defiance to God.

139: What is the point of the state if not the protection of the innocent and prolonging itself to further protect the innocent, as well as propagate Christianity. In this case, totalitarianism is wrong in that it violates the biblical purpose of the state, and transgresses upon the notion of human free will. Man was made to have free will, and so perversions like communism which deny man property ownership and stewardship horribly misidentify the source of this sinfulness, which is a wounding of good things.

140: These people who say the equivalent of "If God exist, why bad thing?????" haven't the slightest clue of Christianity. The world is bad because it is fallen, and Christ has come to redeem humanity, then redeem the world soon enough. Humanity now has the ability to attain eternal life, evade eternal death, and experience love in Christ. The whole point of Christianity is redemption and eternal life because we live in a fallen world. This has been understood since Genesis 1 after the Fall. Bad things happen because we live in fallen world and humans have free will, many of whom ignore the moral law written upon their hearts. Then again, people still say "Skydaddy" and "fairy tale" like those pejoratives actually mean anything.

141: Furthermore, these ideas of "changing" one's gender are innately sinful, as one cannot separate the term for the life stage --terms like "man". "boy", "girl", "woman" which are labels for a life stage within a one of the two sexes, as God very clearly defines it-- from the sex, as it is tied directly to the sex. So saying "I'm a woman", despite being male is a category error, because that is a contradiction, and an attempt at defying God, and one's nature by proclaiming one to be female, despite being male, and attempting to deform one's body to accommodate such a disordered behavior. If one wishes to radically redefine, then why not say "murder actually means removing my socks, so gunning down a room full of people is not murder!", as that is the problem with going against God's definitions, they defy what God means, and lead to sin. If one does not know they are sinning, the punishments still apply, as the moral law is written upon the heart, even if one ignores it. What emerged first, the sex or the stereotype? In this manner, the feminine and masculine stereotypes are exclusive to a sex, and so when Freddie Mercury wears a dress in "I Want to Break Free", he isn't becoming a woman, just taking on stereotypes, which identify nothing, because if they meant something, than a man dressing and acting like a baby would be considered a baby, but obiously, age is linear, just as sex is binary. And so if a man who dresses as a baby, claims he shall commit suicide if not affirmed in this, and believes himself to be a baby by radically separating age from biology, is he then a baby? Why not? Of course, age is linear, and so this man would be incorrect. So what is a woman? Or a man? Well, it is, as the Bible implies and claims, and is as the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches, and adult human female, and an adult human male. I engage in Butlerian ideas here, and they are, quite frankly, Gnostic. It is obvious that "woman" and "girl", or "man" and "boy" are simply terms for life stages exclusive to a sex, and so saying a man is a "woman" would be 100% equivalent to saying an adult is a "baby", if one radically separates body, ontology, mind, and soul. Genesis 1:27. Matthew 19:4. Thus, removing the exclusivity from life stage naming conventions is unnatural, for the Bible and Sacred Tradition is clear that a declaration of a "man" or a "woman" must correspond to "male" or "female", respectively.

142: The problem with softening or abrogating Church teachings is that you could change Church teaching for anything as long as it is politically expedient, "we should permit murder because of interfaith dialogue, or because if we don't permit and embrace murder, something bad will happen!", as if changing Church doctrine is not sinful, or daring to say morality exists beyond God. The problem with softening or abrogating Church teachings is that you could change Church teaching for anything as long as it is politically expedient, "we should permit murder because of interfaith dialogue, or because if we don't permit and embrace murder, something bad will happen!", as if changing Church doctrine is not sinful, or daring to say morality exists beyond God. There is no morality beyond God, and if the Church is against the world, then it should not accommodate the world. Attempting to reform Christianity is terrible, as it asserts God is not perfect, or that his teachings must be changed by men. Is it not demonic to attempt to change Church doctrine and Tradition? Turning people away from God to worship the morality of fallible humans? Galatians 1:8. Matthew 23:13. 2 Timothy 4:3-4. Those who distort the Gospels, even for good intentions, are keeping people away from theosis, misleading people and turning them to Hell. 2 Corinthians 11:14. Fallible people are attempting to destroy the Church, and the Gospels, from Arius to our postmodern times which try to turn Christians away from supersessionism. Morality exists exclusively in God. Why is antisemitism wrong? Why is the Holocaust wrong? Only in God can these be answered. Both are wrong because murder is unnatural, like homosexuality or rape or pedophilia, and humans are made in the imago Dei. That is all.

143: What is natural is good, but we must discern what is natural from what is fallen. Much of Christianity is somewhat naturalistic, but has reason to suspect that nature is good, because it isn't a wholesale "everything in nature, or every phenomena, is good", rather, that nature, as it is created, is good, but perverted by sin, and any act that attempts to pervert nature is sinful. Nature is wounded, and this is wrong, as it perverts creation, and personally contributing to this, in manners such as rape, murder, homosexuality, pedophilia, lust, infidelity, and all other sins, it pushes one away from God in one's personal attacks upon nature. God exists with aseity. God created nature, and what God creates is good, again, referring back to aseity. Nature is wounded due to sin, brought from human actions, but humans live because God loves us, despite our sins, and just wants us to be in theosis. To pervert nature is to pervert something originally good. Thus, to intentionally pervert nature is to defy God, the Creator of that nature. Defying God separates you from God; the source of all goodness and being. Man is also created by God, and so engaging in unjust behavior unintended for humanity, that defy human nature, like pedophilia, then one is culpable for defying God.

144: While the Tolstoyan idea of man existing in a sort of anarchistic state, in which it is only the moral law which man is beholden to sounds great, it is untenable in the face of bandits, thieves, killers, and tyrants, and so there must be a state, as per Romans 13, which exists in a sole purpose to defend the innocent, propagate Christianity, and perpetuate itself to continue defending the innocent. Man will always have kings, this is natural, hierarchy is natural, as some people are better at different things --and while most people suffice as a laborer or a soldier, it is truly exemplary to rule, but not everyone is fit for this position, and so it ought to be concentrated among a king--, even from the Garden of Eden, man was subordinate to God, and kings throughout the Old Testament, despite their flaws, are considered good. And so there must be a government, that is just. Kings under moral obligations to their subjects. Mankind is driven by these sovereigns, as man is so frightful and rivalrous, there must be just kings to rule the nations.

145: I suppose, how do we ensure Christianity has genuine apologetic evidence? Heaven's Gate and the Order of the Solar Temple have died for falsehoods, so how is Christianity different? In this sense, I would say it comes down to the fact that Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament, and there is reason to suspect He resurrected, as the Apostles were not expecting it, and with the other historical evidence, we may conclude the tomb was empty, and the cloth was folded, which is very interesting, because that was a Jewish custom to signify temporary vacancy, not permanent departing, in that a napkin could be folded to indicate the return of a host. Not only did the Apostles not expect, Thomas and Peter doubted, but this was quickly resolved. And the New Testament was truthful throughout, recounting historical information more accurately than some historians of the time, and with an attested date around the first century AD, at that point, all of the information coalesces into the conclusion that Christ had risen from the grave, was walking through walls, was talking with the Apostles, eating with them, et cetera after resurrection. And to think 12 people could possibly keep a lie for decades, so consistently, and under intense persecution, 11 of them dying in brutal manners, with the more concretely confirmed deaths being excruciating, literally, and some of the more hazy traditions involve things like being sawed in half, but nonetheless death by local forces is attestable, even if the method isn't known. It just seems like this was not a case of a high-control group leader manipulating others, rather, God saving mankind. Ideas like the theory of evolution are whatever, they are irrelevant to the matter of the truth of the Resurrection, and with reason and mathematics, one can prove the existence of a Prime Mover, but with the Resurrection, Christianity is proven. So no matter what, there is a truth to be discerned here, and so one ought to defer to the Eastern Orthodox Church. God already defines what nature is, what sin is, what is natural and what isn't, and left us with further implications and Sacred Tradition.

146: Why even elevate the race to such a high extent? It seems futile. Why is the race so good? Not that I oppose racial preferences, I suppose I just view the primacy of the race as incorrect and meaningless without God to be the first principle to everything. Those who say "nation" or "race" are no different than secularists, even if I may superficially agree in some regards, like social conservatism. Why is the nation so good? I say this in the same vein as "how does one know humans have rights above the mere ants?", and "why not elevate psychopathy over empathy?", because I am using the same arguments against secular leftists as I do against Neopagans and ultranationalists. I can only uphold Jesus Christ as the first order of everything. It is the idea that the peoples may be of a plurality of nations, and I do not view the nation as incorrect. Even the Kingdom of Israel had to be distinct from the surrounding nations, and prior the 12 Tribes were in distinct lands. So I have no problem with a righteous nation, and in fact, preferring one's race can be noble in many regards, in a quite localistic sense. But it must be cautioned against the sacrosanct of the material, whether nation or globe, as it is idolatrous, and detracts from the idea of redemption in Christ for all of the nations. I love the villages, the cities, the communities, their cultures, idiosyncrasies, and I find the preservation of race and culture to be noble, indeed, but it means nothing without higher authority to endow meaning. I would refrain from endorsing a reprehensible, vile culture which demands the utmost cruelty and idolatry of man, and the love of Christ is paramount, while all else is peripheral to the initial point of everything in aseity, God. I cannot stand neither the communists nor the nationalists, both of whom uphold material and collectivism above God. Much of this modern idolatry, whether to the world, to the nation, the race, the class, the populists, or otherwise, is symptomatic of this contemporary kraterocratic world order, which has sought since the Enlightenment to destroy the faith in God in favor of idolatry.

147: Hell is pure pain, pure suffering, pure privation from all goodness, including levity and clarity, leading only to torturous agony that only increases in pain through the unrelenting eons and eons. Demons fear Hell, as evident by Legion, when Legion begs not to be cast back, because even demons are tormented by the privation from all Good. Hell is not God's dungeon, rather, a state of being that souls exist in when alienated from God. One does not want to be here in this state, and resigning to Hell, saying "maybe I deserve Hell" is quite ignorant to what Hell is. And in this manner, eternal life, Heaven, is infinitely preferable, in that it involves theosis, the meaning of all human existence.

148: Why is the class so good? Why not hoard, oppress, enslave? Why not? Why should material be distributed? Man is so brutal to eachother, why not kill and slaughter in accordance to this? What is the imperative to be in collectives when we are all indiviudals, and all shaped by our own lives, bound by human nature? Some people are better at certain things than others, and most people are not rulers, not kings, not the great men of history who shape the world. This is a fact. Kings always exist, even among the most primitive people, not because of some "consent to govern", but the stewardship of the kings, divine right, populism, prestige, or otherwise. Why not value kingship and loyalty to the kings above all else? Why not obliterate all of humanity? As life is always a struggle, and toil will always be hard, so why not suicide? Why not destroy everything, everyone, and annihilate all in existence? Why live in good material conditions? Why even have solidarity when man is so individual? Just compete against them, why work with them when enslaving them guarentees material benefit for onesself. So what if it represses others? Why not repress? What even is "class consciousness"? Why gain class consciousness, when socialism leads to material deprivation? Who is to say class consciousness is not simply another ideology, another false moral system, as anything else? Why not engage in the Revolution of Me, where the Ego awakens and declares "I am the sole proletariat, and shall slaughter and enslave everyone who dare deprive me of luxury.". The problem is ultimately sin. The problems of capitalism are attributed best to sinfulness, as the markets are amoral and effective means of allocation, while socialism leads to deep decline, and in this regard, the latter is morally reprehensible in the denial of free will in the totalitarian endeavor to repress and "socialize", while the former is wrong as it lacks moral regulation to prevent matters of usury, but otherwise, the markets are perfect if it were not for human sin, and property is good.

149: Much of secular reasoning is just shifting the goal post back until they use circular reasoning to justify themselves. In my many manifestos, I have exposed this. What is the reason for existence? Why prefer life over death? And the answer always goes back to some moral assumption appropriated from a religion, which they replace the religion with circular reasoning. Much of liberalism and Marxism is like this.

150: Secularism cannot coexist with Christianity, as it is an entirely different religion and moral code than Christianity. And so the state, as a fundamentally moral institution, must decide what morality it follows, and if Christianity does not become the choice without hesitancy, then this state is a kraterocracy, if secular. No reason to rule beyond circular reasoning and personal feelings. May the secular people reside in a Christian state? Sure, as forced conversion is an abhorrent idea which denies free will.

151: On circumcision. I have struggled with the idea that circumcision is unnatural, as a bodily mutilation, and whether or not circumcision is immoral. Hygiene is natural, and nothing is being denied, no nature is being denied, nor is ontology being perverted, in this sense, circumcision can be seen as subduing the earth, but is about as much of a command as it is to have a garden or bird feeder. It's like taking a shower or cutting one's hair. But ultimately, it is pointless whether one has a circumcision or not. No nature is being denied, like in the transgenders, who attempt to deny and pervert creation wholesale, and deny the way they were created.

152: The Marxist cannot explain this away "why not enslave the proles? Why not slaughter them at will? The Revolution has never occurred, and never will, for man is so fragmentary and egotistical. What is the imperative in everyone having material? Why not hoard all of the material for I, the Ego? Why not? They are human? So what? Why care? Why do humans have any rights above the ants? Why not enslave, torture, kill, abuse, and ultimately genocide all which exists? Furthermore, the best material conditions occur under capitalism, while in every communist plan, it has lead to brutal poverty, even among 21st century, first-world examples, it has lead to increased corruption and dysfunction as socialization increases. How do you know life itself is not false consciousness, and that suicide is liberation? Total death of everything is actually true consciousness. Why aspire for material? Why listen to your animalism? Why not kill others for material? Why should they have material? Why not hoard it all? Why not burn, kill destroy, and slaughter everyone and everything for your own will? Why should anyone else have material? Why care about empathy? Why care about others? Why arbitrarily elevate these things. Why not worship the Ego? Why should humanity even exist? When it is simply "because it happens", but why follow it? Why not destroy it all? Why go with the flow when you could obliterate? Why not support any other cause? It all seems so arbitrary, and it is all a matter of kraterocracy. Nobody is actually right or wrong, it is all just preference on everything. Simply saying "then I follow my preference" doesn't change how arbitrary it is, and how you cannot condemn the slavers or the tyrants, because they are simply following their preferences." All ideologies propose this sort of "wake up, people!" idea, at least the populist ideas. So why prefer any of them? Everyone wants a nice car, all people are animalistically inclined to live, so why not do as is exhibited in nature and kill or be killed, steal, abuse, and slaughter as much as possible, as man has done for millennia? Why should anyone care about anyone else? Why not pure slaughter and abuse, acquiring material no matter what? Why cooperate? Why have more material when it could all be forged in blood? Why not forge it all in blood? To slaughter and torment? Of course, Marxism fails in this regard. No reason not to do this. No reason not to live in perpetual war. Why listen to suffering? Why not suffer? Why elevate pleasure over suffering? Why not suffer? Why listen to animal instinct? Why not destroy it all?

153: Of course, exclusion does not at all equate to repression, because, often times, of these elite groups, they hold a sense of stewardship to those in the out-group. Overall, this issue is fundamentally moral, as all things innately are. Morality is the bedrock of all things, and for this, we must discern what morality is, and to that, it is defined in Jesus Christ alone.