Rudyard Lynch recently argued much of modernity is just about mate suppression, and just limiting who can reproduce. Though I must certainly disagree, as I feel civilization to be more eschatological and telological in nature, with the goal being 1. Establish a moral state, whether actually good (Christian) or evil (anything else), 2. Reprimand those who transgress. 3. Perpetuate the civilization for telological reasons. And so, my idea is that, rulers have a telos and an idea for civilization, and create their ideal systems, whether they are actually moral or not, and any "mate suppression" is a consequence of moral disagreement. In the modern day, all civilizations are essentially just kraterocracies, in which everyone has an arbitrary morality, or serves men and constitutions above Christ, and in this sense, it is all about kings saying "I have a gun, you don't, do what I say.". My view is that the elites are bound by human nature, but ultimately more intelligent and telological than the commoners, who are so focused on small things like work, school, crafts, art, whatever, and are readily misled (not in a communist way, because communism is inefficient, material is not innately good, and what is good for men is ultimately not reduced to "class interests" because everyone is an individual who wants different things, and what is good is only in Christ.) and so they require sovereigns, and sovereign heads of state feel stewardship over these dull people, and impose an order of either morality, or self-perceived morality/kraterocracy. In this sense mate suppression is entirely irrelevant to the equation, as any mate suppression is better understood as a consequence of this moral order, in which those who are indicted are reprimanded. All peoples live in hierarchy, even the primitive peoples are so concerned with just seeing tomorrow in their endeavors of hunting and fishing, and sometimes small-scale farming, that hierarchy and statecraft emerge out of some leader's stewardship over these people for some reason. This is not really an ethical model, because simply saying "material is good, and so everyone should have material", but there is no "why?", there is not "ought" to this "is", because everyone wants a nice car, but why not destroy and kill anyway? Why not deprive others of such, or survival needs? Why distribute them? And so the non-Christian, and previously non-Jewish (not modern, Rabbinic Judaism, but pre-Christian Temple Judaism) were all deluded or influenced by demons. Like the Confucian princes and emperors, who believed that they should uphold their Mandate for what? It is arbitrary. And so, back to my point about this matter, man is always about stewardship. And leadership is about being a custodian, with very few exceptions, like Genghis Khan, Manuel Noriega, et cetera, but even they elevated themselves or combat to the highest virtue, and their stewardship was internal, as opposed to external, but without God, there is no reason to explain why these are wrong, or why these should not be the models for humanity, but with God we know otherwise, but beyond that, most governments are of stewardship, which undermines Mr. Lynch's point about mate suppression, as mate suppression is more symptomatic of the telological aspirations of these states.