The Nature Of Civil Authority (Government) & Treason — Guest Post by Oldavid

The Nature Of Civil Authority (Government) & Treason — Guest Post by Oldavid

The premises of this discourse are:

  • that it is the nature of Man (humanity) to live in society;
  • a functional society requires order.

I will define civil order as an harmonious relationship of variables directed to a proper end; in this case, to benefit the members of a society that make up a Nation.

A great thinker, (Thomas Aquinas, C13) developing the written down cogitations of Aristotle and his antecedents, proposed that: “civil law is an edict, based on reason, promulgated by he (or the instrument) that is charged with the care of the community for the good of the community”.

He and I are proposing that a “civil authority” has no reasonable justification (proper purpose) for its existence other than the preservation of order for the “good of the community” (i.e. the commonwealth of the people). As such a civil authority is part of the Natural Order of human life.

As is evident from history, not all Men are disposed to a voluntary order based on a desire for the common good for all; that is, that some seek their own advantage and aggrandisement to the expense and detriment of others. Therefore, a civil authority, for the maintenance of order and the prosperity of the society, must have some coercive or compulsive powers to protect the society from the depredations of malicious elements, domestic and foreign. That is a civil authority (governmental) system whatever its structure, according to custom and circumstance, might be. All good so far.


Contemporarily, treason is defined to suit tyrants and despots as: “A crime that undermines the offender’s government”. Without any reference to the nature and purpose of “government” it implies that any despotic regime with instruments to impose itself is a “legitimate government”, and that any opposition to it is treason.

According to the definition of (civil) law above, the whole purpose of government is to preserve order for the commonwealth of the people. However, if the civil authority imposes “laws” to protect itself from “the community” and/or to subject the commonwealth to its own occult ambitions and by aiding and abetting foreign interests (like secret societies, supranational corporations, banks) and other ideological instruments of economic and cultural depredation that is an act of tyranny, and it is against the commonwealth, which is an act of treason. i.e. a government can betray its purpose and act against the people it should protect.

In that case, resistance or rebellion against a tyrannical perversion of the nature and purpose of “government” (for the good of the community) could not be “treason” but is an act of patriotism against “high level” traitors.

Resistance and rebellion is not anarchy

It is apparent that anarchy is no kind of “new, improved” order. In fact, historically and contemporarily, anarchy is produced by hostile and mercenary brigands who subvert right order for their own ambition, avarice, or covert ideology. That often leads to a kind of desperation amongst ordinary people (who just want to get on with their ordinary business) to accept another despotism in the hope that some kind of benevolent order be restored. Enslavement is a kind of order but not that of the Natural Order described by The Philosopher, above.

The anarchy of physical revolution is a “cure” that is worse than the disease. What is needed is a fundamental definition of treason (subverting the common good) that can apply to anyone of any political, judicial, economic or social status so that they can be surely identified and quietly disposed of with a firing squad. That should be a robust, reasonable and efficient way to discourage treason against the commonwealth.

But how can a traitor be fairly “surely identified” except by a court system? And how can a court truly represent “the good of the community” if it is stacked from top to bottom with ideologues purposely ignorant of the concepts of Natural Order and the fundamental principles of Logic?

I contend that anyone who is foolish enough to bind themselves to a “blank contract” with putrid oaths should be, ipso facto, ineligible for any kind of public office. But, of course, that would require some appropriate enforcement agent. That Agent can be no other than a properly constituted government.

You can, and should, demand to know what are the covert and ideological loyalties of whomever is trying to cadge your vote and select them according to their patriotism and not the ephemeral “Party Politics” and ideologies they will sycophantically support even to your detriment and the enslavement of the whole Nation.

The foreign corporation’s “government” has, apparently, recently granted other foreign interests (via the APRA Bill) an increased arbitrary control (ownership) of your/our financial and real assets. There’s much more and it’s much worse. A litany of successive “governments” have become increasingly bold at subverting and betraying this Nation with perverse laws and with “treaties” or agreements with foreign powers and other entities that crucially undermine the sovereignty and commonwealth of the Nation.

If anyone has been masochistic enough to listen to Parliamentary “debates” they would realise why it is useless to write to or telephone “your” representative with anything but an insignificant gripe that does not challenge anything of the unilateral “Party politics” that is subservient to arcane foreign interests. The “debaters” almost invariably restrict themselves to verbose and pretentious twaddle that never approaches the real issues of the commonwealth of citizens, National security and sovereignty.

With the “system” as it is there is no practical use or effect in submitting anything like this to “your representative” as they have been “preselected” to be impervious to anything inconvenient to secretive “Party policy formulators” and ideologues. That is, that they are psychologically incapable of making any assessment or judgement that is “inconvenient” to the foreign and occult establishment that they traitorously serve.

I suggest that we should quietly chuck them all out and replace them with people of integrity who have the moral backing of the real people who make up the bulk of the Nation. We need to have the courage to defy the noisy minority pressure groups who have considerable financial and publicity (media) support, and covert “legal” protection. The moral support and backing of candidates of integrity is a challenge crucial to the success of the mission. There have been many instances of fairly “good guys” who have been elected then left to be “boiled alive” in the pressure cooker of the oligarchy and its abject, sycophantic tools.

The “Upper House”, or Senate, is Constitutionally intended to be aloof from subversive “party politics” and is the most powerful influence if morally and intellectually functional people are elected to it and are vigorously supported.

An “Australian Patriot’s Cooperative” has been proposed as the grassiest of grass roots organisation that does not have a “policy formulating” elite “at the top” but it is the commonest of common people proposing their own representatives who are directly answerable to them and vigorously supported by them. It’s not a call for “workers of the World unite to destroy the pillars of civilisation” but a call for ordinary people to an orderly defence of their own culture, livelihood, prosperity and even survival.

It’s a quiet resistance to career traitors which can be effected by ordinary people in their ordinary life and within their ordinary social circles without disturbances of the public order or the compliance of career deceivers in the media and public service. If we want it we’ve got to be prepared to do what it takes. Sackcloth and ashes is often recommended.

The Australian Constitution’s blueprint for a form of government that retains the principle of ultimate temporal responsibility (the buck stops at the top i.e. a Monarch with defined obligations to God and Man) while, at the same time, allowing the people an input of their concerns and desires. It is an impressive safeguard against the tyranny of the manipulable ignorant (as Aristotle described democracy) and against the tyranny of an ambitious, megalomaniac autocracy. The Constitution threatened to be so successful that the supranational secretocracy and plutocracy with arcane ambitions immediately set about subverting it leading up to the utterly perverse and traitorous institutions we have now masquerading as government, judiciary, public service, media, academia, who consider themselves a chosen elite destined to dominate and manipulate the “profane” as mere chattels in their arcane “New Order”.

The main problem is that if a people are so degraded that they’ll accept a kind of slavery as long as they’re indulged with hedonism, bread and circuses; well, if it’s what we want it’s what we’ll get. Decadence naturally begets social collapse most often accompanied with invasions and other disasters.

If its our nation we’re obliged to keep it in good moral and social order or we’ll lose it…fair dinkum! It’s happened many times before!

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here


  1. “The anarchy of physical revolution is a “cure” that is worse than the disease. “
    Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison beg to disagree.

    “quietly disposed of with a firing squad.”
    Oh, that is high grade humor, right there!

  2. John Pate

    It’s rather a chicken and egg situation at present: without a population of largely moral and just people you can’t have good government and without good government being moral and just is made insurmountably difficult.

  3. Sheri

    I agree with McChuck’s first comment–the insane idea that voting or whatever is the only option and revolution is never good is, to put it bluntly, ANTI-AMERICAN. It is now taught as why the USA is evil and the author seems to be agreeing that this is true. The author’s theory leads to North Korea.

    “I will define civil order as an harmonious relationship of variables directed to a proper end; in this case, to benefit the members of a society that make up a Nation.” This is, of course, a very, very short-lived state. It takes little time for people to exploit government and become virtual, if not actual, dictatorships. The last sane act of the USA was to limit the president to two terms (three if you can get a zombie stand-in like Obama has). Since citizen’s sanity evaporated before term limits for the rest of the government were set, we were instantly doomed to dictatorship and decline. We are now there.

    Yes, if people want to be abused and their lives to be miserable, that is their choice. Now, if only we could split the union and have the rational and the irrational separated forever. The crazy take the rest with them, though admittedly the “rest” tend to be lazy and stupid and let it happen.

  4. Dean Ericson

    That’s all very well, Mr. Oldavid, but it doesn’t address my question, which is – who’s the head of this snake, and how do we cut his head off?

  5. Ann Cherry

    Oldavid, you are clearly Australian, and writing (quite beautifully) from that perspective; but your basic principles were shared by our founding fathers, as set forth in our nation’s Declaration of Independence:

    In 1776 our country’s founders declared, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    Our government and its corporate allies hopes to replace our celebration of the principles contained in this document, and of our nation’s founding, on July 4th, with the highly illiterate and racialist “Juneteenth”, which ostensibly celebrates blackness but is also held by some to be the date that Republicans freed the Democrats’ slaves, at the close of our civil war. We understand that some modern, mostly white Democrats served fried chicken and watermelon to celebrate their new paid federal holiday, we kid you not.

    As you wisely note, “The main problem is that if a people are so degraded that they’ll accept a kind of slavery as long as they’re indulged with hedonism, bread and circuses; well, if it’s what we want it’s what we’ll get. Decadence naturally begets social collapse most often accompanied with invasions and other disasters.”

    I agree with you that much work belongs outside of party politics, as we see the growth of a “uni-party” here, with little meaningful pushback from most (so-called) Republicans.

    We’re seeing people stand up to tyranny in smaller forums such as school board meetings; the “grassiest grass roots” as you put it. Those who can do so, may want to set up printing presses for the day when we’re all social pariahs, kicked off the government-run inter-webs, left to baking pamphlets into loaves of bread, just like our forefathers.

    I think you’ve got the right idea, for now, non-violent locally organized push-back. After all, as Joe Biden recently whispered into his microphone, his government’s got all of the F-15s and nuclear weapons. After they finish leaving us with our registered six-shooter revolvers and pop-guns, they won’t have a care in the world. And so, and we are told, if we want to live, we must put on the armor of God.

  6. I think I understand what you want to do here: claim that government is a creation of the people
    that treasonably subverts itself when it grows into a self-serving or oligopolistic entity
    -and, by corollary, that nominal treason against such a government is patriotic,
    right, and the duty of all good citizens.

    Assuming that’s roughly what you meant ..? .. I’d point out that every US senator and/or member
    of the house swears to uphold the U.S. Constitution – but it’s hard to find one who takes the oath
    at all seriously. So what’s your cure for them? recall? firing squad? ten years in solitary with
    reruns of The View on 24 x 7?

    That’s the issue: not whether it is better to take up arms than to dream of a fools paradise, but how
    to affect real reform in the real world – one that’s rather larger than 3rd century BC Athens. Now if you have ideas about that..? perhaps Dr. Briggs will give you space to express them – and if you want some ideas, see for one of mine or read for explanations.

  7. Johnno

    I’d go with the philosophers and the Church that Monarchy is the only sane form of government, but we can also improve upon it with a constitutional monarchy with a court of democratically elected representation; all candidates as independents, and parties should be outlawed. Also ideally all nation states should be much smaller than what they are. The U.S. should be balkanized, the EU should be disposed of. Power should be more widespreadly distributed. And every male should have membership in the formal military or police or local militia unit and gun licence should be as common as car ones, encouraged at the high school level, the girls too, but for men is mandatory to have spent time in service for the Military or police and also farm work. You will be familiar with both the sword and the ploughshare.

  8. Incitadus

    So what you’re you’re saying is that humanity in all it’s variegated organizational forms
    is basically a criminal enterprise, the most subversive of which attach some moralistic
    sounding dogma to secure preeminence. I’m onboard with that! Then there’s the free stuff
    like salvation if you would just open your cells to the vaccine.

  9. C-Marie

    Thank you Ann Cherry!!
    God bless, C-Marie

  10. GreenHoyos

    Johnno, wouldn’t go that far, I’d suggest Erik con Kuehnelt-Leddihn, who was a monarchist. You can have a republic like Venice, or something like the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth.

    I hear a lot of talk about the US splitting up and it can’t really happen. Shoot we couldn’t split during the civil war when we were radically more homogenous on every level (although I’m sure they’d all unite against our modern enormities).

    New York and California are “irredeemably leftist” but have millions of conservatives. Our reddest states have millions of leftists. There’s no way anybody is splitting up the military arsenal, especially the nuclear weapons, and football teams aside, regional feeling isn’t going to cut it, people have been transplanting like mad trying to stay ahead of the economy. Even trying to go city versus rural, there’s heavy political mixing, more than a fifth of NYC voted Trump in 2019, “small” percentage but hundreds of thousands of adult voters.

    I suspect we’re all riding this train till the end of the line.

  11. C-Marie

    Humanity in every way is in desperate need of salvation which is obtainable only through Jesus Christ, His death and Resurrection, for He alone is Life, and to have Life everlasting, one just be in Him and He in us!
    God bless, C-Marie

  12. C-Marie

    “one must be in Him and He in us!”

    God bless, C-Marie

  13. Oldavid

    “The anarchy of physical revolution is a “cure” that is worse than the disease. “
    “Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison beg to disagree.” Says McChuck!

    I will contend that all the figureheads of every revolution in recent history would also disagree; from the French Revolution, the Bolsheviks, all through East Asia, and everywhere the plutocrats have sought to impose idolatrous “democracy” using the secretocracies embedded in Anglo-American imperialism as their abject tools. Various forms of anarchy are indispensable in imposing a supranational corporatocracy sold as “democracy” in which their puppets can be selected and controlled such that “the people” can be fooled into thinking that they are “free” because the puppets of the tyrants are appointed by their votes.

    The largely hidden oligarchy loves “democracy” because they can select and promote (sell by media) craven ideologues who will “toe the line” out of convenience, ambition or fear.

    You Yanks don’t realise that your beloved Republic and “democracy” and Constitution are directly a manifestation of the ideals of the French Revolution that can be summarised in one of the Revolution’s slogans, the epitome of “liberty”: “every man will be his own king, his own priest and his own god”. Surely you don’t imagine that the Frenchies gave you that idol of the “Goddess of Reason” for nothing! Surely you don’t think that the deification of “the rights of Man” that is incorporated into the national psyche and formally condemned as the heresy of “Americanism” is only a petulant reaction of those claiming the rights of Christ the King over the supreme rights of Man.

    I suggest that anyone interested in the nature and purpose of government should read ole Tom’s dissertation on the matter, paying particular attention to chapters 6&7:

    It is not my intention to endorse “the divine right of Kings” or to endorse “the divine right of a fickle popularity” (the tyranny of the ignorant, as Aristotle described democracy) but I am endorsing the notion of a “Constitutional Monarchy” as a form of government in which we have a Monarch with defined obligations to God and his subjects, whose position is not dependent on manipulable public popularity, who is presumed to be schooled in his duties almost from birth, who has an advisory delegation from the populace to bring to his attention matters of public welfare that may not be obvious from his somewhat detached position. No law can be enacted without his approval (he is responsible) and no law can be enacted at the whim of those who shape “public opinion”.

    Presently, all the Monarchies that I know of are mere figureheads of the Judeo-Masonic oligarchy unable and unwilling to exercise their duties to God and Man but… it could change if we are worthy of good government.

  14. Oldavid

    I appreciate the comments, but I did expect a more hostile reaction… perhaps it’s coming.

    Somewhat astonishing is the appraisal that it’s “beautifully written”. With my “personality defects” I’ve never been accused of that before.

    Johnno, in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia there is no provision for political parties, Prime Ministers, Presidents or any of that. The various Parliaments are only representatives of the sovereign people proposing matters of their concern to the Monarch for his/her approval (usually by their appointed representative) but the ink wasn’t even dry on the Constitution that was approved by the people in referendum and by the reigning Monarch when it was subverted by other interests calling themselves a political authority with “legislative” powers.

    No, I never said that, Incitadus, the nearest you might come is that most people are concerned with their own business but that the realm of politics has a peculiar attraction for egomaniacs and narcissists.

    Mr Paul Murphy, I think it would be hard to show that “government is a creation of the people” even though there are plenty of instances where the “style of government” is directly related to the (maybe covert) ambitions or ideology of “the people”. Government is an entirely indispensable part of a natural order consisting of beings in society. Even chooks have a “pecking order”.

    I will propose the alluded to “Australian Patriot’s Co-operative” to W’m Briggs; it might be of some interest even though it is somewhat parochial. I developed it after decades of “lobbying” “polyslushians” and recognising that they are “party selected” to be impervious to anything inimical to the pervasive political ideology.

  15. Robin

    Oldavid => “… your beloved Republic and “democracy” and Constitution are directly a manifestation of the ideals of the French Revolution that can be summarised in one of the Revolution’s slogans, the epitome of “liberty”: “every man will be his own king, his own priest and his own god…”

    Not so. The American Revolution is generally considered as taking place in the period 1765* and 1783; the French Revolution 1789 to 1799, after the American one.

    The entire basis of the two is different; the French being a revolt against Monarchy, the American being based largely on colonial defiance and economic freedom. Americans, who were largely a unique and distinct indigenous culture by 1765 (as compared to their colonial overlords), didn’t really have a first-hand experience of Monarchy as did the French. I can imagine that Monarchy was seen as an invisible, oppressive and distant, foreign power for a large percentage of the American population by the late 1700’s.

    To take this a step further, it is reported that Thomas Jefferson’s work on the American Declaration of Independence (1776) was the inspiration for Lafayette’s French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), not the other way around.

    Having said this I don’t think that the founding documents in America or the American system are perfect. They were/are flawed. Of interest, Constitution of Confederate States in many ways was better. Having read it, to my surprise I can report that it:

    – Banned indentured servitude.**
    – Banned international slave trade.
    – Greatly strengthened states rights.
    – Established that the nation’s principles are based upon Christianity and Christian principles.
    – Included a Presidential line-item veto on Congressional bills.

    Nonetheless, you make a number of valid points. There are times when I think the ideals of “Representative Democracy” or “Constitutional Republic” are just too flawed. Maybe a better system would be that each state identify a pool of 200,000 upstanding, politically-moderate citizens, then randomly select from this pool each Congressional/Presidential term, eliminating elections and the costs and corruption they bring. Thereafter voting powers of the people should only be used in a negative sense, to ‘deselect’ or ‘recall’ one of these random candidates should they so require it.

    Sadly there is no simple answer to these issues. We are all imperfect.

    * 1765 being the beginning of protests against the Stamp Act.
    ** US Constitution enshrined in law both slavery and indentured servitude until 1866 when the 13th Amendment came into force. Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation” only applied to the Confederate States, not the Northern ones. It was a wartime strategy, not for humanitarian purposes in my view, as there were slaves, slave-holders, and indentured servants in the north too. Ulysses Grant, the Northern General and later President, owned slaves before, during and after the war.

  16. Oldavid

    DAV, you seem to subscribe to the illusion that reality is “becoming” and that it is a mere product of a dialectical competition between the “old” and the “new” that will go on until the “Omega Point” is reached in the undefined (perhaps unreachable,) infinity of “progress” from Nothing to a “Universal Consciousness”.

    I contend that the whole shebang is the product of a pre-existent Life (power), Intellect and Will that magnanimously allows some creatures endowed with life a prerogative of intellect and will to accept or reject goods offered.

    Yair, you’ll never beat a tyrannical government using guns but there have been many tyrannical governments beaten without guns or swords.

    The “best ships” and the best guns are of no use at all unless they are manned and operated by the sycophants of a narrative that may, or may not be, based in an objective notion of Truth and Virtue .

    We’re touching on the notion of a “just war”; justice is a metaphysical “concept” that is incomprehensible to “New Age” gurus except as some kind of revenge or retribution against opponents.

  17. DAV

    you seem to subscribe to the illusion that reality is “becoming” and that it is a mere product of a dialectical competition between the “old” and the “new” that will go on until the “Omega Point” is reached in the undefined (perhaps unreachable,) infinity of “progress” from Nothing to a “Universal Consciousness”.


    The “best ships” and the best guns are of no use at all unless they are manned and operated by the sycophants of a narrative that may, or may not be, based in an objective notion of Truth and Virtue .

    Truth and Virtue? Those are attributes assigned by victors.

    you’ll never beat a tyrannical government using guns but there have been many tyrannical governments beaten without guns or swords.

    Depends on whether you mean “guns or swords” literally or you really mean ‘weapons”. If the latter, name one that was successfully overthrown without at least the threat of war.

  18. @Oldavid: “You Yanks don’t realise that your beloved Republic and “democracy” and Constitution are directly a manifestation of the ideals of the French Revolution

    You (whatever you are) obviously don’t understand history and can’t do math. The US revolution began in April 1775. The US Constitution was written in September 1787 and adopted in June 1788. The French revolution began in May 1789. The Kingdom of France constitution was adopted in September 1791. The constitution of the First Republic was adopted in 1793.

    1775 is 14 years before 1789.
    1787 is two years before 1789, four years before 1791, and six years before 1793.

  19. Amateur Brain Surgeon

    In America, established by the wealthy to favor their interests, it was agreed upon that the Lockean idea of a perpetual obligation on the part of those who succored the revolution (and by extension, their progeny) was the implicit agreement and, thus only an armed revolution could sever that perpetual obligation.

    The Confederacy never understood that. They thought they could just walk away from the Union and be left alone. HA!!!

    While it is true that the CSA was not engaging in a civil war – they had no intention of ruling the northern Yankees – the Civil War was engaging them because of the Lockean “principle” of perpetual obligation

  20. re:
    “Mr Paul Murphy, I think it would be hard to show that “government is a creation of the people” even though there are plenty of instances where the “style of government” is directly related to the (maybe covert) ambitions or ideology of “the people”. Government is an entirely indispensable part of a natural order consisting of beings in society. Even chooks have a “pecking order”.”

    The English colonies in what is now the United States generally started under charters issued by the crown. In almost every case local government evolved from that through community action – and, of course, the U.S. federal government was set up by the people to serve the people. And yes, some slimy self-serving pond scum did get involved, but they did not generally create government in their own image so while your country stayed a colony theirs did not.

  21. Johnno

    Regardless of how the US started, it eventually morphed into the same colonizing empire it is today where it has been at war for most of its history. Some conflicts we liked, many others we don’t, and at the end of the day, the South was not allowed to do what the U.S. as a whole did when it declared Independence.

    In any case old history won’t get us anywhere. The point is now what is to be done. The suggestion to break up the union is understandably not desirable, but I feel it is the most pragmatic solution. It doesn’t necessitate that it all be back to the original state lines. It could be done in four quadrants. Some individual States can form unions with others where practical and so on. The point is the dissolution on Washington’s central control which would help seriously wound the diabolical bastards running it.

    Then arguably reds would move to red nations and blues to blues, kind of like the migrations between Muslims and Hindus between India and Pakistan, and that was rife with problems but that should also see the migration problem solve itself where the illegals can simply move to and apply for citizenship and socialism in the blue nations. If some choose to settle in red states and abide by the laws, then I see no reason not to grant them citizenship on a case by case basis. Then deport the scum back to Mexico or let them take refugee status in the blues.

    Only issue might be that the reds will want access to the oceans so that they have ports that aren’t controlled by blues, so I figure 4 quadrants of the US should at least exist so that the reds can access either ocean.

    As for structure of government, the blues will fall into pseudo democracy or outright fascism and communism; hence why reds will want their own ports on wither side and not be beholden to the blues any more than China.

    Reds will not want to leave traditional democracy vulnerable to this infiltration – they CANNOT TRUST THE BLUES TO HONOR THE NEW STATE LINES OR TO LEAVE THEM ALONE ANY MORE THAN IRAN OR SYRIA.

    So the red states will have to count on a strong government of a republic not vulnerable to the faults of the old model. Unfortunately America has no Monarchial legacy. It’s recourse is to start one, or something similar.

    One solution could be the model of the Catholic Church and the Papacy. Where the sovereign is chosen by democratic election, but installed for life. Though the difference is that unlike the Pope, whom can only be removed by God upon death or manifest obstinate heresy and apostasy, the rulers of these red nations is subject to checks and balances and the law. Thus he can be cast from office for serious criminal activity. Having a long-term ruler provides stability. Upon death or serious incapacity, another election can be held.

    Now the question is who votes. If the state size is small enough the general people can make a decision as there is greater control. But if the state be larger it may be better to place that decision amongst those most competent. There should be subsidiarity where areas are under control of the people who themselves elect a ‘clan leader’ or representative or duke or ‘prince’ that they locally know and trust who would then make a vote on their behalf.

    So like the Church, a system of representative Monarchy can be set up that is still a government by and for the people without the incessant turmoil of divisive election wars every 4 years that begin on Day 1 of the newly elected. Without the colour party racket, and when there’s no new saviour to groom and you can’t remove the guy in charge, then the people might actually give a damn about the issues rather than the face or character of the guy in charge.

    And naturally it goes without saying – this does not guarantee you paradise – so you should all be keeping guns and all men are members of the military and have a say in what wars you’re going to die for.

    And yes, breaking up the U.S. will mean you will lose out in terms of being a global economy and military force, and maybe your lives will initially be poorer as you sort things out. But decide if the long term consequences are ultimately worth it.

    And again – DO NOT TRUST THE BLUES – when those fools fall apart yhey’ll blame you and even ally with China and have boots on the ground for aid and U.N. peacekeepers. So you’re going to want to be vigilant.

    And there’s the other question – who gets to keep the nukes?

    I don’t have a solution, but I will say that the more one looks into this, the more complex it’ll be.

    It will, as our Lady of Fatima prophecies, take a tremendous supernatural miracle or divine punishment to set this right.

    Any red nation will ultimately fail if they don’t quickly figure out – what should be our official State religion? If the people can’t overwhelmingly unite behind that, then you will have a short lifespan.

  22. Flan O’Brien

    The essay began with a promising veneer of rational concepts :

    “nature of Man, society, functional, order, harmonious, relationship of variables, benefit, the members of a society ”


    – arbitrarily, it chose an optimal scale as “Nation”
    – insists force of the barrel of a gun is necessary for order
    – failed to knit the rational concepts into a method or system

    Here are my precepts:

    – Variables are way too complex for the human mind to fathom, nor to program an AI to sort out.
    – Variables depend on scale, therefore a correct dimension of scale for each variable considered is paramount.
    – For the most part, that scale, in order of highest importance will turn out to be village, town, region.

    Nation/country,globe are way too high in scale for several reasons:

    1. No variable tinkering applicable to such a scale can be proven to be right. Such tinkering can have disastrous consequences, for example CAGW, global germ theory policies (“covid”)

    2. At this scale, no control mechanism to ward of corruption/usurpers is possible.

    At the scale mentioned, voluntarism and 100% consensus decisions will work perfectly fine. This is called anarchism = absence of leaders and absence of deadly force.

    Sort out the smaller scales and the higher scale will conform naturally.

    Amartya Sen, Nobel prize winner, points to the success of a medieval Europe of 800 principalities, which contrasts with gargantuan introverted Chinese empires.

    “Small is beautiful” – Schumacher

    Beauty is divine.

  23. Chaeremon

    @Flan O’Brien, Re: scale
    Applying numeric scale to societal matters is the guarantor to applying numerical properties to people “you damn not divisible by 5”.
    Instead, look at the definition of e.g. perfect graph, which is perfect if every arbitrary subgraph is perfect. Translated to societal matters, this can mean local self-government, led by local representatives, with consular advisory council from neighboring municipalities. So, if being perfect translates to be able to do without corruption, this is the property which sets the limit as target.

  24. Oldavid

    It’s getting a bit more interesting. Americanists!

    Is there something wrong with acknowledging ancestral and cultural roots? Even the Babylonian Talmudists that own and control the “City of London” and all its franchises throughout the World (including the “District of Columbia”, Washington) like to boast of their cultural roots where it is not convenient to blame their depredation on their host countries.

    The English Monarchy has been owned and controlled as a mere figurehead or mascot for the “Crown” (the “City of London” with dominion over the empire since Henry VIII traded the kingdom for the throne).

    Yes, I know that the “American Revolution” took place before the French Revolution; BUT! the French Revolution did not erupt spontaneously overnight; it was fomented out of decades of ideological antagonism to Christian Order in Masonic antipathy to a social order based in a Catholic Christian notion of morality. As far as I know all of McChuck’s heroes were ‘Masons bent on installing a “Novus Ordo Seculorum” detached from the strictures of the “oppressive” Apostolic Christianity.

    At least one of the heroes of the Revolution was decorated by the French Revolutionaries as a supporter of the ideals of the Revolution. Was it Thomas Paine? the poor wretch who so distinguished himself with his anti-Christian diatribes that only 6 people showed up to bury him?

    I am not, in any way, advocating for disruptive “demonstrations” or any kind of “activism” to disrupt or harm ordinary people going about their ordinary business. Such activities (even if it makes you “feel” that you’re doing something) are easily infiltrated and diverted into a media spectacle that can be judiciously edited and sold as a completely false narrative.

    No, I am proposing that ordinary people with their ordinary friends and their ordinary gripes and their ordinary fears and their ordinary aspirations should propose similarly ordinary people to represent their interests in the political organisation of the society they make up.

  25. Amateur Brain Surgeon

    Dear Johnno. What a smashing response and it is right in line with the desires of all intelligent and handsome men.

    Regional confederations are prolly the answer. ABS is drawing a blank on his name (Forrest McDonald?) who proposed just that years ago.

    For those interested in Monarchy, a fun read and intro to the subject as a remote possibility here is, ” Star-Spangled Crown: A Simple Guide to the American Monarchy” by Charles A. Coulombe.

  26. Amateur Brain Surgeon

    If one clicks on the name

    Donald Livingston

    at the link, one can read his other great papers (forgot to note that)

  27. Ann Cherry

    Jim Acosta suggests that school board meetings could lead to “insurrection”:

    Most of us know that Jim Acosta is one of the dumbest people in the Manson Media, and that’s a very low bar; like many bird-brains, he’s a canary in the coal mine: going forward, any disagreement with leftists or their policies, will be portrayed as an insurrection.

    Someone else wrote this:

    “At the last Methacton School District School Board Meeting in Montgomery County Pa., an Asian Christian lady came to the podium (Zoom meeting) and shared how CRT conflicted with her Christian faith. She questioned the Board’s hiring of a radical marxist to help implement CRT, and why the parents are not being included to know what their young children are being surveyed about, and what the survey results were, etc. Secretive goings-on.

    At the end of the meeting, the Board President stated that she disliked how the lady used her 4 minutes speaking time to talk about “religion”. She said she would be talking with the school district’s attorney the next morning to explore limitations on what residents would be allowed to talk about.

    Then she said words to the effect that ‘like it or not, we have Separation of Church and State in this country.’”

    They are very afraid of the grass roots movements, because that’s where real power lies, and they will try to mow them down. In a sense, the whole world has become Tiananmen Square.

  28. Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution. — CCC 2243

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *