Trinary System of Hydra by P. Michael Amedeo

Prologue.

A compilation of the Supertext, and some original works and additional compilations

Trinary System of Hydra.

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.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.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. 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. 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. 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. Of what does it entail that a binary view of truth is incorrect? One may affirm the Earth is flat? That dogs are cats? Man is woman? Child goes to work and parent goes to school? To claim there is no objective truth is itself an objective truth, a creed proselytized for what? Political expediency, of course. There is an objective truth, and it is the world. It does not matter the consensus, what matters is that something is true when provided evidence. Moral truth? What if my moral truth is domination, totality, and slaughter? Am I wrong? Of course, my idea was wholly hypothetical, and meant to challenge secular assumptions. And so these Marxists, such as in South Africa engaging in white genocide, this is wrong no matter what. Or in the United States where whites, and previously blacks, were disadvantaged as collectives. These are wrong, for the innocent whole of a race is not tainted by a few. These Marxists justify their violence as a sort of retribution, but there is no reason to follow this, and furthermore: people are only culpable of the crimes they have committed, and are unable to be indicted on anything more. Like these DEI and AA programs which exclude whites for what? Most are innocent, and in any sense of meritocracy, this is absurd. People who are wholly innocent are deserving of no reprimand. But is it not so that the collective is merely a group of individuals? That man does not exist in a hive mind, but exists upon himself as creations, individuals, bound by matters of culture and civility, but ultimately human and individual. That rulers, not groups, are responsible for their actions? Is it not so that mankind evidently frightful, egotistical, skittish? There has never been this action without a sovereign, and there is no nation without its leaders. That mankind has never had this collective agency, and that history is the clash of ideas of stewardship, morality, and custodianism across civilization? It seems obvious, as Marxism is readily incorrect, and fails in logic.There has never been idealized mass action in history, every revolution has been led by sovereigns commanding the many, and originate from a miniscule clique around a leader commanding forces, from the Sturmabteilung to the Red Army. Even the anarchists of Catalan had their leaders commanding forces, and even a president. So you uphold absolutely arbitrary morality, which is ultimately predicated on baseless assumption. For your response, I want to keep things short and direct. You say harming people is bad? Why? Because it's bad for society? So, who cares? Why is society so good? Human flourishing? Why is that so good? Why is domination, cruelty, and destruction bad? Why is benefit even good? Why care? Who's to say the noble "truths" you believe are actually false, and that pure domination is actually higher? Because humanity needs it to exist? Why should humanity even exist? If it's just about pure preference, then might makes right, because it is about imposing one's ultimately arbitrary preferences. Why care if we are even human? Why would a warlord care, or even be incorrect? And so secular has been refuted. If cruelty is just as valuable as kindness, then there is nothing and no meaning to anything beyond will to power. Even the nihilists who attempt to construct meaning are ultimately engaging in a desperate act of futility. And yet, there is a God, and Christ is risen, as evident through the historicity of the Gospels, the reliability of the resurrection, the wide exhibition of logical and historical evidence, alongside being itself. Christ is King, and all reason descends from God, for He is goodness and "is"ness itself as a conscious being. No other religion is so evident, and none as evident as Christianity. I suppose that history should be more fixated on great wars and rebellions which affect the civilization, which is driven by larger-than-life sovereigns, whether solitary or engaged in court politics, and what's more important is the movement of these armies at the behest of elites, and the great court politics as a stage for a clash of ideologies, religions, and philosophies which influence imposition. Equal weight on both war and politics, as both are commanded by elites, who are vanguards of ideology, philosophy, or religion. That is the neoheroic view. Economy is important in the sense it is the production of raw materials by the laboring class of people, whether capitalist, socialist, manorial, or otherwise, these people, the commoners, are indispensable in their ability to produce the raw materials necessary, and any failure to produce is the liability of the sovereign, whose decisions caused such insufficiency. Meanwhile, this oppression is the result of something unintentional, usually. There's never malice or irrationality behind oppression. Meanwhile, class does not matter, as each one serves a purpose, whether raw production (the vast majority of the population who are too egotistical to do anything else), the warriors (who police to ensure those engaging in conscious, criminal deviance are swiftly reprimanded, as well as serving as a civilizational defense. Equally irrational, though paid to fight, or allotted property in exchange for combat services), and the leaders (those liable for every decision made in a civilization, whether oligarchic like in republics, leading to clashes, but also smarter, albeit more deliberative, decisions, or an absolute despotism, which is faster, but not always as smart as a republic.), though each class is more like a complimentary mutualism in relationship, albeit with a very distinct political hierarchy derived from reason. Only the aristocratic or oligarchic leadership class can rule, this is why we have senators and representatives and a president, none of whom are warriors or producers, because each class serves a function, and while in many models, one can move from class to class, it involves the abandonment of something, such as ex-military statesmen. This further provides a reason why there has never been a pure revolution, in the Marxist sense, for the victorious are often exceptional individuals or cabals of exceptional individuals, as these egotistical producers, or soldiers, that just want what immediately benefits them, and only care about their immediate surroundings, and are entirely benign as well as skittish, and will not act unless given enough simple platitudes of grandeur and feelgoodisms. Every riot is organized, every protest is organized. The French Revolution would not have occurred without Robespierre, the English Peasants' Revolt would not have occurred without Wat Tyler, and the Third Servile War would have been impossible without Spartacus. Man exists harmoniously in hierarchy, in a complementary fashion, just as families exist in a naturally complimentary and mutual relationship, with a man being unable to raise a child without a woman, and vice versa. In this sense, culture is important, as, if there is some disruption to the family unit, the children will be raised in confusion and in deep dread, and a product of this will be a mentally unfit individual more disposed to poverty and crime, and if this sort of behavior permeates, it would threaten civilization. This is why the feudal and manorial lands of Europe were so stable, and why modern nations, in a multitude of other factors, are so unstable and morally corrupt. On morality itself, it exists objectively, however, it is separate from history, as the exceptional may choose to be moral or immoral according to this criteria, and so while their actions have a moral value, they are mostly amoral when committed, and usually accompanied by good intentions, even if morally flawed and misguided. These people, they follow leaders either because they are within immediate benefit, such as money or some kind of simple promise (never complex, never philosophical, often times mere flawed reasoning), or something more manipulative, as these people are egotistical, and, even if a contingent of people were oppressed, the bystander effect substantiates the notion that nothing would happen unless there is some vicar from the metaphorical heavens to raise forces, or in a political sense, utilize complex, intricate philosophical reasoning to persuade others to impose the will of the sovereign. However, it is more affirmed that the childhood effects of degenerate activity is an emotional matter, which most certainly influences mindset and emotions, informing one's conscious actions in a sense, though conscious action is inexcusable, ergo, man is responsible for his crimes, whether theft, rape, or otherwise, as an individual, and a mere victim of circumstance as postulated by Hobbes. What is the necessity of leadership? In a sense, it is for the basics of protection, however, it is not productive to reduce leadership down to mere “protection”, one who commands and army, and while this is necessary, the sovereign is as much of a commander, a diplomat, and a collaborator as much as he is the vicar of ideology. It fundamentally affirmed the banality of the masses as a fundamentally skittish, obedient herd, as documented by many, such as Mosca, who said “In reality the dominion of an organized minority, obeying a single impulse, over the unorganized majority is inevitable. The power of any minority is irresistible as against each single individual in the majority, who stands alone before the totality of the organized minority.”, and this fact is evidenced by the matter that every society in history, without any exemption from this phenomena, as the ability of the few to collaborate in the pursuit of ideology, societal maintenance, and cultural curation in this idea subordinate to maintenance. The truth is that society is constructed in the conscious effort of sovereigns who construct the first primordial citadels which are toiled and farmed in the mutual welfare of the citadel as the citadel provides indispensable defense to the labor which toils away. And this is the basic common denominator of society: the mutual existence of the classes, lead by the sovereign who provides protection, philosophy, and cultural vitality, as the laborers produce the raw materials, whether directly via feudalism or slavery, which are in equal benefit to the citadel, which benefits the labor, or in a liberal economy, which is indirect to the citadel, but in equal service to the citadel, albeit more efficient and moral. The citadel provides defense of the peoples and an stable culture, and these forces and cultural facets are commanded by the sovereigns, who command the benign, impotent, irreverent, and quite frankly vacuous commoners who are irrational and self-interested, as evident by the fundamental nature of populism, which enchants and entices the banal masses with simple promises and prospects, whether or not they are accurate. In this matter, this freely guides the conclusion the masses are inert, though functional and requisite in their nature. The sovereigns, however, are idealistic in nature, and typically desire to improve society, and this is morally-induced, whether by accuracy in morality, such as in a more theonomic sense, or in a more incorrect delusion of humanism, progressivism, or any other philosophy predicated upon the man-made and deification of humanity. This is in the pursuit of morality, and of civility. Exceptions, such as Manuel Noriega, are in the pursuit of some betterment in a Nietzschean sense, and are more expressedly this “will to power” monolith, and is immutably anomalous, though exceptional nonetheless, and I would further insist the biography of a sovereign is irrelevant in contrast to the important matters of ideas, action in the motions of civilization, whether in court politics, or commanding forth the battles. I would argue the battles and the politics themselves should take primacy in the documentation process, as these are substantive, and influence future events as they inspire sovereigns and spur philosophies to impose by sovereigns, which is necessary in ensuring the telos of moral government and cultural maintenance is sufficiently insured. In conclusion, the sovereign is important in the matters of commanding defense and ensuring the prolonging of society, all within their influences of philosophy, which are consciously and agently imposed upon an irrational, inert masses in a benevolent manner. That is the importance of leadership. There is no contesting the necessity of the family unit, the three estates, the matter of the sovereigns, and the necessity of hierarchy, which all compose neoheroism, and inform the writing philosophies of world & spectacle and space & spectacle. No matter what false teachers say, their ideas are flawed and unreliable, like Marxism, which routinely fails, and it is observed that every nation in adherence to socially conservative ideas is prolonged by the nature of man's natural binary and the objectivity of man, and the idea that he is not some freeform spirit being, but an organism, albeit a rational one. Man and woman exist as objectively as horse or sky, and the denial of such is mere solipsism. One man, one woman, non-mentally ill, and their children, that is is what prolongs society, as it is entirely contingent upon the health of a child, who requires a mother and a father, not a surgically deformed man who believes himself to be a woman --which alone is silly, because these people believe gender and sterotype are synonymous, that a man or a woman is defined by sterotype, as opposed to biology, which opens up the door to suggest that, if a man were to dress in feline attributes, then he would be a cat! But of course, this is ludicrous. And these "non-binary" equally fall short in their logic, conflating gender with sterotype, as opposed to something innate. It relegates everything into mere abstraction, which detracts, so erroneously, from reality.--, and not a single parent alone, as this would all increase the propensity for crime, for poverty, and mental illness, and for this reason, mental health awareness is very positive in effect, but should not excuse behavior which, if they were to permeate, would erode at the very foundations of civilization. In this sense, "punching down" is not wrong at all, by concept, but the context matters. Equal to "punching up", which speaks to a broader point that the world is only structured by the banality of the producing masses behaving as they ought to in the unbeknownst preservation of civilization, and the will of the sovereign in his clash of ideas to improve civilization, and the imposition of such via the courts or the armies. The idea that the world must be driven by sovereigns, yet emancipated from personalism, is a symptom of a more consequentialist perception, I suppose. Am I consequentialist? I suppose so. Duty is meaningless without consequence, unless there is a presupposition of honor, though without consequence, there is not a reason to even uphold a constitution predicated on "honor" or "duty", as there lacks consequence in any instance of violation. It is obvious: collectives are composed of individuals, each as fearful and destitute of philosophical reasoning as any other, and vulnerable to the wilderness, or to organized civilizations. They only become safe when a leader emerges and commands forces to protect, and in exchange, whether conscious or not, the collectives of individuals work in this safety, in the deficit of harm, and their raw production fuels the means of defense and cultural upkeep which protects them. And this is only disrupted when the base unit, the family, is demolished via some permeating force, whether some disturbing counterculture or state-sponsorship, which ultimately leads to children being raised in environments not conducive to adequate development, whether homosexual, whether single parenthood, or whether some form of transvestite upbringing, it is all divergent from the necessary balance and wholeness requisite. Man is an organism, and it is foolish to deny that man exists without a nature, and without function. Mental illness is bad for raising children, single parenting is bad for raising children, homosexual parenting is bad for raising children, and all because it increases the child's propensity for crime and for poverty, suggesting an incompleteness, or otherwise a deficit in natural wholeness which must be followed for children, an instinctual form of humanity which requires this balance. And in this case, I have come to the conclusion that, when intellectual faculties break down, such as on a civilizational level, then only quasi-animalism remains. In the case of revolution, or any alleged grassroots movement, it is the baser instinct which grips the crowds, as they are disinterested in philosophy and reason, and so they obediently and piously jump at the clap of sovereigns who command them with simple promises and bombastic rhetoric. The masses, they are not intellectuals, and so, when they are met with something they do not understand, then they are left to their more primeval insight into the natural human herd mind, though they possess a less animalistic behavior in other facets, such as what they are interested in on a baser level. The fact of the matter would be that humanity shall always be ruled by elites, by nature, and there is no evasion of this fact. The masses are too egotistical by nature, and are more of an instinctual kind of person, ergo, follow the leader. This naturalism is not the denial or defiance of intellectualism, far from it. Man has a nature that must be followed, otherwise there shall be significant earthly consequences. However, this nature is not totalizing, per se, and is more pertaining to matters of base organization, such as family and lifestyle, at which point deviation is to the detriment of health and development. And alongside an overarching nature which is involuntary. And so, while there are behaviors attributed to nature and instinct, as man is an organism, it is however ignorant to deny this free will, and so the balance is so: man has a nature, but it is not totalizing, especially not to the philosophers, the kings, or the theologians. In other words; there is a nature which cannot be denied lest we aspire for dysfunction, yet it is a nature which applies alongside the role of the leaders, the kings, the philosophers, and the theologian. 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. It is right that people are not guilty as collectives, and individuals are only guilty for what they do themselves. Indeed, as collectives are mere bodies of individuals, who are guilty on their own, regardless of culture. I would concede on many of the notions posited by Carlyle, though my fatal disagreement lies in the manner in which history is told. I believe history to be largely impersonal, and while I most certainly adhere zealously to the Carlylean ideas of great men, heroes really, driving history, I must say I disagree with the exposition of their personal lives as a means to attribute to their philosophy. I believe the great man is distinct from his philosophy: the womanizing, New York playboy billionaire Donald John Trump, is equally the stalwart, conservative, and moral president of the United States; or the heroic Napoleon Bonaparte, admired even by his adversaries, and yet a sexual deviant. Thus, it is evident that personal lives contribute a negligible product to the philosophies of these great men. Rather, we are instead to fixate on the grand forces lead by these great men, their grand courts, great armies, theatrelike politics. History is an opera, and must be exposed similarly as the clash of philosophies, great men, grand armies, and political entities. Of course, I oppose the Marxists, and denounce their silly ideas, and their foolishness as a contingent. They believe people behave as a hive mind, as opposed to peoples being aimless and directionless, lest united by a hero, and the accompanying philosophy. People do not act without leadership, just as the serfs rarely revolted against their estates, as there had been no reason to without a leader. The Servile Wars would have never occurred without the leaders at their helm, steering the movement. They believe in material, I believe in philosophy; they believe in class, I believe in heroes; they believe in universal rational faculty, I believe in exclusive rational faculty. This is a sufficient summarization. The Marxists are operating on a presupposition that all peoples are immutably equal and fundamentally blank slates at birth, as opposed the philosopher, who recognizes innate irreason behind the actions of the many, who serve in the interest of themselves as the sacrosanct, and their immediate survival and vanity, without overpowered reason. Some people are meant to be ruled, not that they ought to be stifled, as the Marxist would cry, rather, that people will fall into their natural state, lest inhibited by hereditary factors, such as in a feudal system. So while the Marxist proposes the end of history derived from the abolition of class: the alleged progenator of struggle. I instead espouse the abolition of impediments, as I embrace the natural order: hierarchy, family, tradition, and liberty. It is impossible to construct a classless society, as most psychologically crave leadership, insatiably so. There is a reason civilization was birthed in the anarchy of the Neolithic, and the Marxist would deny this, as the primitive peoples are somehow virtuous in their egality, an erroneous notion, as even the most primitive peoples crave leadership, and cultivate just that: leadership. I think the idea to end history, as the Marxist pursues in their futile abolition of class oscillates between the frivolous and foolish. There is no end to strife, and certainly not one which is derived from the paradoxical stateless society, which would require a state to establish and prolong, lest mankind revert back into warlords, princes, manorial landholders, and other such practices. An a unsustainable idea, which is reprehensibly authoritarian. I would argue the best means to eliminate such strife would be found and attained within the free markets, and the libertarian society, in which all manner of gain is entirely contingent upon the ability to work, to save, to sacrifice, and to compete: true virtue. Of course, this model should not exist without a reference for tradition: what binds society. Family: what builds society. And hierarchy: which leads society into a greater future, unburdened by prior strife. My proclamation is not the end of history, but a anew, dominated by freedom and market, which subjugates man, incomprehensibly so. And you can clearly see that these masses, these people, they are these rather silly masses who are not thinkers, who are banal and dumb. We don't need to invent these terms such as "false consciousness", and perhaps we may simply acknowledge the truth many dread that perhaps most people are not blank slates, but are genuinely dull and skittish. Every strike, every revolution, every law, every notion of forces, every mutiny, every riot, baboons: all lead by the few commanding the many... at what point do we accept the truth? Even Lenin himself when he witnessed the stupidity of the masses had to concede and cope with vanguardism. And keep in mind, the Marxists love to cope and say it is some kind of mere culture, but I feel the fact that even primitive tribes, even the most egalitarian, behave this way, even baboons behave this way, and every last historical motion is commanded by leaders is the most telling that this is humanity, and some are natural rulers who defend these banal egotists. Man is ruled by intelligent sovereigns who impose their ideas upon banal, impotent, dumb masses, who may accept it as culture. Any matter of repression of any kind is the liability of the sovereigns, and collectives are not responsible for anything on their own, as they are too intellectually deficient. It is the personal will of the sovereign who creates culture and defends culture, commanding forces, and imposing a will they believe will be of some civilizational prosperity, continuity, or otherwise, with exceptions for leaders, such as President Noriega, who are merely corrupt and nothing more. The masses are not guilty of anything in particular, and their culture will change upon a reformer sovereign beginning his rule, as the next generation is then influenced by this new sovereign. All matters of history are the matters of sovereigns clashing, whether formally (courts) or informally (war), in their ideas of morality, prosperity, and continuity. Morality exists objectively, but many sovereigns are not moral in their policies, because they may be Buddhists, or Hindus, or Muslims, or Hellenists, as opposed to truly Christian, and following the objective morality. Otherwise, morality is distinct from these matters beyond its ability to influence a sovereign. Everyone is different, and so most people are unintelligent people who are not these malicious actors as these Marxists would say, and largely do nothing beyond their laboring positions. And over the generations, reforms take hold when reformer sovereigns begin their rule and thus change culture. And so, yes, intersection is true... because everyone is shaped by everything in their life as individuals, and the local conclusion of intersection is individualism. Morality is defined only by God, and any moral failure of the regime is the product of sovereigns. Why is "inclusion" such a moral imperative? Certainly, all are equal in spirit to Jesus Christ, and good will must be exercised upon all people, but why is this earthly inclusion so good? Is it not right that people may have a preference for their own kind? Their own tongue? Or otherwise preferring a nation of their own? Why is this wrong? The Marxists will spout on about colonialism (which really is not this civilization killer, as any dysfunction is the liability of the sovereign head of state), but the fact of the matter is that such an argument is a non-sequitur, as it does not answer the "why?" in any way which is not derived from emotionalism. All morality which exists is exclusively derived from Christ, and this is obvious, as any other moral statements can be deconstructed with a mere "why?" or "so?". The point of the matter is that any dysfunction or immorality of the civilization is squarely the liability of the sovereign, including repression, which is best repaired by upholding the human rights to pursue God, and manipulating culture if necessary. The masses, as obvious by the motions of history, are egotistical, banal, skittish, and dull, as obvious by the fact that every tribe, every war, every revolution, every populist force is all at the helm of a leader imposing his ideas in the name of continuity or morality. And because of this, any dysfunction among the civilization, whether economic, whether civil, whether moral, it is all the liability of a tyrant. Tyrants are deposed by any means of politics or wars, because the masses are so banal and impotent, and they cannot defend themselves. Of course, markets are the best means of economic allocation, this is the truth as substantiated by many writers, such as Hayek, Friedman, Sowell, and otherwise. Of course, the masses do exist as a free people, a chaotic and atomized force which labors about, and the best means of maintaining well-being is through the best living standards and meritocracy of laissez-faire economics, which are beneficial to all parties involved, provided it remains socially conservative, or otherwise compliant with human nature so as not to incur this criminal burst which occurs when the family unit breaks down, depriving offspring of what they require due to man being a type of organism. It is right that people are not guilty as collectives, and individuals are only guilty for what they do themselves. Indeed, as collectives are mere bodies of individuals, who are guilty on their own, regardless of culture. Indeed, it is so that man is chaotic, egotistical, and quite skittish without leadership. There has never been any mass movement without the command and enchantment of sovereigns, or otherwise known as the hero as king. It is verifiable in the fact that collectives are merely groups of individuals with their own personal agency and such, but fundamentally skittish and egotistical, which is why these matters of politics are done via populism, or otherwise known as the soft enchantment by a sovereign, whether corrupt or benevolent, who have brought this view, and enchanted others with simple things, simple promises. But ultimately, it is the sovereigns who drive civilization, whether through command of forces, political maneuvering, or the enchantment of a dull many. Even these riots, mass crime, this is not an example of collective consciousness, as the Marxist would say, rather, chaos and fear manifest, however, many great scholars have argued that even these bursts of aimless destruction are equally led, most particularly in the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, in which, through the chaos, leadership emerged in two, but one of the greater being Raz Simone, this malevolent tyrant who saw what sovereigns had seen: stewardship. This is because man is, within the nature of most, frightful and meek, but in the presence of a sovereign, capitulate fully to their will. There is no "realization" in the Marxist sense, because the masses are just dull, they are not intellectuals, nor latently so, but are egotists, enchanted only by sovereigns. Democracy, in this nature, is synonymous to kraterocracy, not benevolent governance. Even among the Hadza, there is leadership apparent, though de facto, it is prestige, and there are disputes and conflicts within the people. Now, is nature and the alignment to the natural order, the mere deference? I do not believe so. It is thus that, in the context of the banal, nature-driven masses, then natural realism is the prime deference, however, in matters of kings and theologians, there is much to do, such as clashing on about the nature of Christ, or the best model of governance to bring about prosperity and longevity. It is known. 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.Once enough people are not migrants to Christiania, and are born into it, then you shall see the war on human nature begin, unless of course, they retain the culture of the settlement. However, if their culture conflicts with human nature, it will be ruinous. Like promiscuity, or any kind of destruction of the family unit, it is untenable. This is obvious, as Thomas Sowell had pointed out, that fatherlessness and motherlessness lead to decay, the most obvious example being America's black population. The systemic racism argument has been debunked, most obviously by American Asians and African migrants (like Nigerians), who have disproportionately low crime rates, less divorce, and less homosexuality. It is thus! It is known!

There has never been a mass movement in history. Man is frightful, skittish, egotistical; driven by baser impulses and sin. All movements, 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. Even in Catalonia, they had councils and a president. There has never been mass action. Every revolution has always begun with a small elite. Without them, there is nothing. Even among primitive tribal peoples, they experience the same matters of egotism, fear, and malleability as any cultured or advanced civilization. Marx is blanketly wrong, and only recognized false patterns. The masses had false consciousness, or consciousness in general, because is not a hive mind, and culture is merely the values inherited, and readily manipulated. The average person is quite dull, typically at the most average, lower, or slightly higher, end of the IQ spectrum. And because of this, there is no "collective", only groups of individuals, each as fearful, skittish, and egotistical as the other, even among primitive peoples. This "false consciousness" is a false concept to romanticize the masses, who are obviously rather dull upon themselves, and are not latent philosophers. "...Paris Commune, the Haitian Revolution, or anarchist experiments in Spain?", the Paris Commune had a leader, though he was imprisoned, the Haitians were incited by a Voodoo priest and later had an emperor, and the Catalonians had councils and a president, with armies and regiments. The Russian Revolution began with Lenin, and ended with the February Revolution, which was less of this mass action as romanticized to be, and more of a riot initially, and I feel I have established prior that riots are nothing except noise, which was then led by Bolsheviks. These prior building events were either incited in some way, or were bursts of emotion, indicative of nothing beyond the further substantiation of man's apparent egotism. If false consciousness is thus, and as you describe it, this is across the entirety of man, then it is obvious human nature, only supporting my claims further. Any "true consciousness" would be indistinguishable from false consciousness if "consciousness" had never existed initially. As for material conditions, this is an unsound position, as it was aforementioned that this mass collective uprising has never actually occurred, and all matter of history is actually a clash of ideas between sovereigns. By "sovereign", I mean leader, a leader who is otherwise the prime mover of everything, even if leadership changes often. Every "mass movement" has a leader to incite, to guide, to force. It is obvious. The Arab Spring, Hong Kong, et cetera, they all had someone to guide. As for the quote "A starving worker doesn’t need Hegel to know he’s exploited.", I counter, what if he is not being exploited? It is merely transactional goods and services, with any exploitation emerging from the state regulations upon the economy, and even if he is exploited... he does nothing about it beyond flee, and if there is nowhere to flee, he stays, and does nothing, or he is enchanted by simple promises for his simple mind, and joins the other fodder in some movement. I suppose this matter ultimately boils down to a menagerie of philosophers, all of whom disagree with the other's side, and no way to discern the truth, and being ultimately a matter of persuasion. What if it is all correct? Or better, what if it is all meaningless, and all of it is actually incorrect? It all is about creating a convoluted mess which could be indistinguishable from fiction. And so, only in objective reality and matters of primatology and theology is the truth discernable. There is an objective reality, I reject these notions of postmodernism, as man is obviously and organism of a fixed nature, and the world exists objectively. But I am referring to these theoretical matters of no particular substantiation. All of these philosophers, they all have coherent ideas, all of them in support rigorously, and it would already deplete a lifetime to understand them all, so it is all a manner of "who reaches you first". But reality is objective, the world is objective, and everything is objective in this sense, however, in doing this, the problem then circles its way around to finding the truth in a sea of falsehoods, going back to square one and repeating the initial problem. And so, the truths remain. Leadership is vital for civilization. Mass action does not occur in any significant way, and it all has some kind of leadership, always. And man is an organism with the needs of one, including a mother and father, or civilization shall decay, as very identifiable. God is real, morality is real, and that is all. And anything else is obfuscation, I suppose. All this speak on "false consciousness", "true consciousness", perhaps it is all meaningless, and everything is best described by how it is objectively, and perhaps by all root in God, and God alone. Most are innately dull, and always led by leaders, in any significant way, even in the LA riots with gang leaders. But ultimately it is all under the incitement, or some kind of influence of elites. And these riots, like how the February Revolution began before Bolsheviks made something of an ultimately worthless riot, are all generally noise unless incited by someone, and the consequences are thus the actions of sovereigns, or they amount to nothing, in a hit or miss manner. And so, the ultimate idea is one of sovereign action, and Carlyle is indeed correct. And all of these speak on false consciousness is otherwise the ramblings of obfuscation, and man is as he is, by his nature, by his original sin, and by his malleability, and this notion of a true consciousness is essentially just false consciousness under a different term. Even Gramsci's idea does not prove any consciousness in any regard, but rather, mere malleability of man's egotistical mind. And anything perceived as going against ones interests is probably itself a false evaluation of things, or otherwise some kind of sovereign enchantment and charisma, and there is no "duping", only man's nature, which is hierarchical. 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. What even is one's interest? In Gramsci's Hegemony, it is essentially this assumption of something good which is defined only by Gramsci, and is faulty at that. I would say, what is correct is visible, veritable, logical, and discernable. And the truth exists in these three pillars. 1: The family unit is the most vital unit of civilization, as readily corroborated by Thomas Sowell. Charles Murray spoke of similar things, and his ideas are indeed very comprehensive and rigorous, though I lament at the lack of the same sort of "kick" that Thomas Sowell has in his writings. Though these ideas of the family unit being vital for civilization are readily attested to by James Q. Wilson and David Popenoe which have concluded in the biological necessity of the family unit. I have seen much interest in "Life Without Father" in particular as a clear text to support these ideas. 2: Secularism is without any coherent foundation which is not readily deconstructed by the mere term "why?", and other such probing which yields troubling conclusions, such as the idea of the True Tyrant, a sort of Ubermensch even unbound by any morality at all, including reconstructions under the ideological nihilism, and instead embracing the abyss, and is only combatted with theism, in this case, Christianity. 3: The nature man as naturally egotistical and skittish. I believe it was Leddhin who expressed this idea of this "herd", or otherwise the commoners, who are not particularly intelligent on most levels, as noted by Le Bon in "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind", and Bryan Caplan's "The Myth of the Rational Voter", and corroborated by matters of the bystander effect. This is obviously not what Marx suggests either, as even primitive people are just like this, as evident by the fact they themselves are guided by their own sovereigns, as evident with peoples such as the Maasai, or the Hadza, or in prior histories, nomadic Eurasian steppe peoples, like the Scythians. It is further attested to when even leaders were present in Revolutionary Catalonia, holding a president and local councils. And via the historical fact that no revolution begins with popularity, from England, to Russia, to China, to the United States, and it all begins with leaders, better articulated by Vilfredo Pareto.... And in synthesis, all of these combine, with minor technical finishes, to create this new form of thinking. I would refer to this as the Three Thomas Synthesis: Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Sowell, and Thomas Carlyle, in synthesis, which is the view proposed here. And these communists, how do they know they are not also manipulated by Marx? Marx is morally incorrect. For example, why is oppression even wrong? Many say harming people is bad? Why? Because it's bad for society? So, who cares? Why is society so good? Human flourishing? Why is that so good? Why is domination, cruelty, and destruction bad? Why is benefit even good? Why care? Who's to say the noble "truths" you believe are actually false, and that pure domination is actually higher? Because humanity needs it to exist? Why should humanity even exist? If it's just about pure preference, then might makes right, because it is about imposing one's ultimately arbitrary preferences. Why care if we are even human? Why would a warlord care, or even be incorrect? And so secular has been refuted. If cruelty is just as valuable as kindness, then there is nothing and no meaning to anything beyond will to power. Even the nihilists who attempt to construct meaning are ultimately engaging in a desperate act of futility. And yet, there is a God, and Christ is risen, as evident through the historicity of the Gospels, the reliability of the resurrection, the wide exhibition of logical and historical evidence, alongside being itself. Christ is King, and all reason descends from God, for He is goodness and "is"ness itself as a conscious being. No other religion is so evident, and none as evident as Christianity. And so, all reasoning which proclaims moral imperative must logically descend from God, and from God alone, for there is nothing else. Reality is indeed objective. The masses have never acted with any spontaneity, the most ever occurring being riots, but leadership is ultimately vital. In this case, any notion of "consciousness" is all a nonsensical term, as there is no evidence for anything that isn't "false consciousness", and so if everything is false consciousness then there is no true consciousness, and Gramsci is ultimately self-refuting on these matters if interest, making baseless moral claims, prior refuted, obviously. Any leadership is top-down. All of it is. It is few commanding many. By all means it is top-down. I would say, what is correct is visible, veritable, logical, and discernable. And the truth exists in these three pillars. 1: The family unit is the most vital unit of civilization, as readily corroborated by Thomas Sowell. Charles Murray spoke of similar things, and his ideas are indeed very comprehensive and rigorous, though I lament at the lack of the same sort of "kick" that Thomas Sowell has in his writings. Though these ideas of the family unit being vital for civilization are readily attested to by James Q. Wilson and David Popenoe which have concluded in the biological necessity of the family unit. I have seen much interest in "Life Without Father" in particular as a clear text to support these ideas. 2: Secularism is without any coherent foundation which is not readily deconstructed by the mere term "why?", and other such probing which yields troubling conclusions, such as the idea of the True Tyrant, a sort of Ubermensch even unbound by any morality at all, including reconstructions under the ideological nihilism, and instead embracing the abyss, and is only combatted with theism, in this case, Christianity. 3: The nature man as naturally egotistical and skittish. I believe it was Leddhin who expressed this idea of this "herd", or otherwise the commoners, who are not particularly intelligent on most levels, as noted by Le Bon in "The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind", and Bryan Caplan's "The Myth of the Rational Voter", and corroborated by matters of the bystander effect. This is obviously not what Marx suggests either, as even primitive people are just like this, as evident by the fact they themselves are guided by their own sovereigns, as evident with peoples such as the Maasai, or the Hadza, or in prior histories, nomadic Eurasian steppe peoples, like the Scythians. It is further attested to when even leaders were present in Revolutionary Catalonia, holding a president and local councils. And via the historical fact that no revolution begins with popularity, from England, to Russia, to China, to the United States, and it all begins with leaders, better articulated by Vilfredo Pareto.... And in synthesis, all of these combine, with minor technical finishes, to create this new form of thinking. I would refer to this as the Three Thomas Synthesis: Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Sowell, and Thomas Carlyle, in synthesis, which is the view proposed here. And these communists, how do they know they are not also manipulated by Marx? Marx is morally incorrect. For example, why is oppression even wrong? Many say harming people is bad? Why? Because it's bad for society? So, who cares? Why is society so good? Human flourishing? Why is that so good? Why is domination, cruelty, and destruction bad? Why is benefit even good? Why care? Who's to say the noble "truths" you believe are actually false, and that pure domination is actually higher? Because humanity needs it to exist? Why should humanity even exist? If it's just about pure preference, then might makes right, because it is about imposing one's ultimately arbitrary preferences. Why care if we are even human? Why would a warlord care, or even be incorrect? And so secular has been refuted. If cruelty is just as valuable as kindness, then there is nothing and no meaning to anything beyond will to power. Even the nihilists who attempt to construct meaning are ultimately engaging in a desperate act of futility. And yet, there is a God, and Christ is risen, as evident through the historicity of the Gospels, the reliability of the resurrection, the wide exhibition of logical and historical evidence, alongside being itself. Christ is King, and all reason descends from God, for He is goodness and "is"ness itself as a conscious being. No other religion is so evident, and none as evident as Christianity. And so, all reasoning which proclaims moral imperative must logically descend from God, and from God alone, for there is nothing else. Reality is indeed objective. The masses have never acted with any spontaneity, the most ever occurring being riots, but leadership is ultimately vital. In this case, any notion of "consciousness" is all a nonsensical term, as there is no evidence for anything that isn't "false consciousness", and so if everything is false consciousness then there is no true consciousness, and Gramsci is ultimately self-refuting on these matters if interest, making baseless moral claims, prior refuted, obviously. How did Gramsci know that he wasn't actually under false consciousness? If all "false consciousness" is simply whatever disagrees with Marxism, then it is all baseless presuppositional theology which lacks any evidence, and routinely fails, like in every communist state. I feel any means of "mass dissatisfaction" means essentially nothing, as the obvious driver of history is sovereigns who command forces, as is the evidence, as there is no movement without leadership. So, it seems that it is all the matter of sovereigns enchanting others to achieve their ideological means, in every case. This is not "false consciousness", as there was never "true consciousness", as it all relies on moral claims unsubstantiated, and largely appropriated from Christianity, albeit distorted. Isn't "true consciousness" essentially mere propaganda of the Marxist enchantment? How is communism true consciousness when all communist states fail? Perhaps is it to concluded that humanity is naturally more individual, more egotistical, and so he is naturally driven by leaders, no matter their persuasion. How is Marxism not enchantment? Both communism and capitalism have the same core of materiality, but one is more realistic about the achievement of these quality conditions, through markets, and the other by trying to fight with human nature by essentially forcing collectivism on a creature which is individual. It just seems as though the Marxists do not know what oppression is, or why it is wrong. To them a family is somehow oppression, though I fail to see how. The problem with Marxism is that they do not see the complementarianism, mutualism, or otherwise the necessity of everything, which is perhaps why they have such a poor mindset of civilization, in which everything can be produced for free, or that people readily want to relinquish their products, which conflicts with man’s nature. The fact of the matter is, most things serve some kind of purpose, and nothing is without some kind of benefit in some way.

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