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!