All reasons descends from God, ultimately. Why should we even have civilization? Why must humanity even exist? This leaves a black hole that Nietzsche attempted to reconcile in his Ubermensch, but this is where my idea of the True Tyrant emerges. Essentially, the True Tyrant is the Ubermensch who when rejects this clinging to values exemplified by the Ubermensch, and behaves violently, selfishly, beholding all to the utmost brutality and injustice because, if the abyss is all which exists in a godless universe, then there is no reason to be as cruel and as destructive as possible. And so even the justification for civilization itself must be derived exclusively from God, because there is no reason to care about human flourishing, or why it is even a moral imperative without God. And so, God's supremacy is vital. The only answer to stop the Tyrant is "you are not God, and will suffer for eternity in separation from goodness, in separation from your Creator (though the Tyrant may not see this as imperative), and you will essentially be in eternal pain and torture, a torture fitted to make you feel uncomfortable, so if you, the Tyrant, have any sense of immaterial preservation that is permanent and eternal, then you ought act justly." Because the Tyrant can change the physical, but not the metaphysical. "Wouldn't the Tyrant view even divine punishment as meaningless, or even embrace it, if nihilism is total?" I have actually struggled with this question, and concluded that Hell will make him suffer, no matter if he likes it or not. Because he is without the Earth, and in deprivation from even the goodness of the imago Dei, he would surely not desire this. "Is the fear of eternal suffering enough to restore justice—or is it just another tool of control?" I actually do not think this matters, because even the idea of "control = bad" is meaningless without God. "What if the True Tyrant sees Hell as another expression of domination—God as just the strongest tyrant?" Good question. I would say God is good, as a being, is goodness, and by nature is perfect, including perfectly good, and immutably so, as God is eternal, and this disposition is affirmed by the Bible. Unlike the True Tyrant, who acknowledges that his idea of total extinction and brutality is merely his arbitrary preference. Hell is certainly punishment, though more of a self-punishment, as one voluntarily sins and rejects God, and so they push themselves into Hell, which I have considered more of a state of being, perhaps with some physicality, like Heaven, but it is best described as the inverse of the Eternal Life that Christ had spoken of, and so, the True Tyrant would logically not desire to enter eternal death. One had thrown the True Tyrant back to me, and said "what if he didn't listen to God? Or know of God?", and I would say that is not the point of the True Tyrant, as the point is exposition of secularism and the necessity of religion, ideally Christianity, though this idea belongs exclusively to Christianity, as all reasoning in this sense must be derived from God. but to answer the question anyway, then he will suffer in hell regardless, and there is a reason not to go to hell, and so the True Tyrant could not emerge from a civilization which is innately religious at its core. Not even necessarily Christian, but just any religion with a concept of an afterlife, though Christianity is the truth. However, among secular parasitic civilization, there is nothing which prevents the True Tyrant beyond sheer force and physical restraint, essentially kraterocracy. 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. To one who says "the ideal theonomic state you speak of 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. 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. 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. 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. One may ask "what if the True Tyrant does not care about the truth?", well, I had prior assumed that the True Tyrant would be a rational figure, but let us say that he ignores the truth, well then he shall go to hell and suffer for eternity. As for a more concrete answer, I would say that the Christian state would have every right to persecute the True Tyrant, and justly so, as it is their moral obligation as governors, and as leaders, to act morally, and to quash such grotesque and immense immorality, as the Orthodox Church has condoned. In this regard, the Christian theonomy justly defies the True Tyrant, while the secularists would have no reason to oppose the conquests of the True Tyrant. If the True Tyrant is simply following a religion which deifies himself, then the Christian states have no fault in fighting against an expansionist false religion as a moral obligation of the leaders, the sovereign earthly rulers subordinate to God. However, if the Christian state is somehow toppled by the True Tyrant, than the Christian opposition leaders ought to command forces to stop this True Tyrant, as a prescription of the Orthodox Church, of the Christian kings to destroy such evils. There shall also be the matter of judgement, and so, if the True Tyrant is essentially just the Antichrist, he shall be defeated by Christ, or at least heavenly forces. Meanwhile, under a materialistic, or otherwise secular idea, there is no reason to combat the True Tyrant. Why do humans have dignity above ants? If we are just a bunch of apes running amok on this backwater planet called Earth, why not die? Why not go extinct? Why should humanity exist? Why should the Earth exist? Why not destroy everything? Why is civilization so good? Why is hurting people wrong? And I receive no answer from the secularists.