One of my most favorite professors! Studying the 20th century with him this semester in the Honors Great Books program at FUS has been very informative.
30:15 “ this is why human, no matter how all in are still capable of sin” did he misspeak when he said send? Did he mean virtue? Or did I miss his point entirely ha
21. THE MONARCHY: A KING (“kṣatriyaḥ”, in Sanskrit) is a man who has a divine mandate, via his counsellor (i.e. his spiritual preceptor), to govern an area of land (and sea) and the population within its borders. He should be the head of the military, and if necessary, courageously lead his army into battle (as opposed to cowardly scampering into a bomb shelter under the Pentagon building, as Presidents of the United States of America are apt to do). A king should be a natural leader among men, and be willing to sacrifice his life to protect his subjects. A good monarch will take heed of astute advice from his spiritual guide (ideally, the wisest prophet in his kingdom), as well as his lay ministers, in order to build a just society. A LEGITIMATE monarch will endorse holy and righteous edicts, such as absolute freedom of speech*, homeschooling of children, free markets, and private ownership of all goods and services (even such infrastructure as roads, water and sewerage systems, health care, and education). He will enforce taxation of the profits of businessmen alone (and not of any other class of society), provide material support to members of the Holy Priesthood if necessary, establish a monetary system using (or at least backed by) precious metals, and avoid interfering with the private matters of his citizens (unlike evil governments, which meddle in such things as sex, marriage, and discipline within workplaces and families). There are only two kinds of persons who would POSSIBLY object to the institution of monarchy: By far the greatest number of objectors are those who have very little idea of what constitutes a LAWFUL monarchy, as defined above. The usual arguments are either “I don’t want to be ruled by a tyrannical, despotic dictator” or “I don’t believe monarchy should be hereditary”. Obviously, neither of these arguments is applicable when the institution of monarchy is properly understood. Any man can call himself “King”, but if he lacks saintly (or at least noble) qualities and doesn’t have the best interests of his people at heart, he is naught but a fascistic dictator. Just as a priest is, by definition, a holy man, so too should a monarch be a righteous, wise king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit). After all, a king’s primary duty is the protection of his nation (“saṃrakṣa” , in Sanskrit), so how could a person fulfil his duty of care if he was evil and uncaring? Just as a family must be protected by its head (the father), every nation requires a good patriarch. Unless a man has the natural proclivities to do so, he ought NOT follow his father’s occupation. Therefore, a prince isn’t necessarily qualified to assume his father’s role upon the demise of his sire. The only “valid” objection to monarchy could possibly be from those miscreants who wish to destroy society via an ILLEGITIMATE system of government (see Chapter 22) or those who are simply too stupid to understand how monarchy is the most beneficial form of governance. Any form of governance OTHER than monarchy must be, by the process of simple deduction, controlled by either workers, businessmen, or priests (or even women!), and therefore, is intrinsically evil, since those persons are unqualified to rule a nation. If there is no aspiring monarch extant within a nation, then the best alternative is a priest (a prophet, to be more precise), but only until a monarch arises and retakes power. The Sanskrit terms “rājanya” and “kṣatriyaḥ” refer exclusively to those very rare males whose vocation is to serve their nations as kings, and not simply any man who serves in an army or navy as a warrior. All military staff, apart from the supreme commander (the monarch) are members of the working class of society, since they are EMPLOYED by the king as soldiers. The word “kṣatriyaḥ” comes from the root noun “kṣatra”, meaning dominion, power, or supremacy, implying that one who belongs to this class of society has “supreme” dominion over all others. To presume that a soldier/warrior belongs to the ruling class simply due to the fact that both soldiers and kings sometimes partake in battle is, as mentioned above, truly hilarious. Therefore, if you are one of those Indian guys who mistakenly consider yourself to be a kṣatriyaḥ, simply because you signed-up to one of the branches of the military, or even more preposterously, the fact that one of your ancestors may have been the monarch of some part of ancient Bhārata, kindly stop your self-delusion - you are nothing more than a silly, foolish worker! One of the most baffling rebuttals I receive to any of my precepts, is in regards to my assertion that MONARCHY is the only legitimate form of governance. I have seen a huge number of comments in social media platforms in which the authors criticize various extant governments for their multifarious wrongdoings. I often respond to such comments with the whole of Chapter 22 (and sometimes with this chapter) which proves, beyond any doubt whatsoever, the above assertion (that monarchy is the ideal form of governance). Those commenters invariably are unconvinced of the obvious wisdom of “FISH” and attack my position with truly inane retorts, particularly with the claim that democracy is inherently the best form of governance, for they are unable to see the blatant fact that the cause of the aforementioned wrongdoings is precisely the democratic (sometimes, socialistic/communistic) system that they support! It is akin to saying: “I know that slashing my wrists is causing my body to lose blood but if I don’t stop slashing my wrists, I will no longer bleed, so it I had better keep slashing my own wrists!”. The stupidity is truly astounding! Even more astonishing is the number of persons who (supposedly) have read this chapter, in which the two most common arguments against monarchy are given, yet proceed to proffer one or both of those two arguments! It seems that folly is boundless!
Is there anywhere I can go to understand how Dr. Jones interprets the Lockean social contract and the more benign state of nature Locke begins with? It certainly seems like Locke moderates, in that sense, between the presupposition of a war of all against all in Hobbes and the presupposition of social peace in Thomas.
They both see man as not essentially social and therefore the polity as something constructed rather than natural. With these reductionist anthropological foundations I think their social consequences will always be problematic, especially after the exaust the capital of Christian and natural morality that contradict them but have maintained relatively stable societies despite the problematic individualistic and voluntaristic ideology and fictions (like social contract).
22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES: SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a certain number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or a worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him substantial wealth. As mentioned above, although socialists and communists maintain their ideologies to be purely economic systems, it is very difficult, if not outright impossible, to divorce them from the political realm. In any case, assuming that socialism is no more than an economic organization, simply for the fact that it disallows any form of free-market exchange (which is objectively moral, or at worst, amoral - see Chapter 12), socialism and communism must not be imposed on any community, society, or nation. At worst, socialism/communism/Marxism is a truly horrific, tyrannical, totalitarian, criminal regime which leads to untold pain and misery, due to the ideologies which are intrinsically associated with Marxism, particularly a ferocious hostility towards all things dharmic, such as freedom of religion. Marxists enjoy using the terms “capitalism” and “imperialism” in rather INACCURATE and emotive ways, in order to emphasize their supposed wicked natures. I would wager that the main motivation for Karl Marx’ (as well as the multitude of vassals to his caustic ideology) hatred for free-market economies is simply out of envy for the business class. There is very little doubt in my mind, that if Herr Marx and his minions had somehow found themselves with a healthy bank balance, they would have invested their financial resources in some kind of profitable enterprise, such as establishing a business or investing in company shares or stocks, rather than distributing their wealth among the poor masses, which would be more in keeping with their inane, egalitarian ideology. If you think otherwise, then you are truly deluded, and think too highly of that parasite Marx. Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”. The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon. DEMOCRACY is almost as evil as socialism, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate who promises to fulfil their petty desires, rather than one who will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law and ethics, currently available. Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest). The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn’t necessarily correlate with wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule. To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”. Furthermore, true democracy is impossible in practice.
One of my most favorite professors! Studying the 20th century with him this semester in the Honors Great Books program at FUS has been very informative.
Good Girl! 👌
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Does anyone know when his new book is supposed to come out?
30:15 “ this is why human, no matter how all in are still capable of sin” did he misspeak when he said send? Did he mean virtue? Or did I miss his point entirely ha
21. THE MONARCHY:
A KING (“kṣatriyaḥ”, in Sanskrit) is a man who has a divine mandate, via his counsellor (i.e. his spiritual preceptor), to govern an area of land (and sea) and the population within its borders. He should be the head of the military, and if necessary, courageously lead his army into battle (as opposed to cowardly scampering into a bomb shelter under the Pentagon building, as Presidents of the United States of America are apt to do). A king should be a natural leader among men, and be willing to sacrifice his life to protect his subjects. A good monarch will take heed of astute advice from his spiritual guide (ideally, the wisest prophet in his kingdom), as well as his lay ministers, in order to build a just society.
A LEGITIMATE monarch will endorse holy and righteous edicts, such as absolute freedom of speech*, homeschooling of children, free markets, and private ownership of all goods and services (even such infrastructure as roads, water and sewerage systems, health care, and education). He will enforce taxation of the profits of businessmen alone (and not of any other class of society), provide material support to members of the Holy Priesthood if necessary, establish a monetary system using (or at least backed by) precious metals, and avoid interfering with the private matters of his citizens (unlike evil governments, which meddle in such things as sex, marriage, and discipline within workplaces and families).
There are only two kinds of persons who would POSSIBLY object to the institution of monarchy:
By far the greatest number of objectors are those who have very little idea of what constitutes a LAWFUL monarchy, as defined above. The usual arguments are either “I don’t want to be ruled by a tyrannical, despotic dictator” or “I don’t believe monarchy should be hereditary”. Obviously, neither of these arguments is applicable when the institution of monarchy is properly understood. Any man can call himself “King”, but if he lacks saintly (or at least noble) qualities and doesn’t have the best interests of his people at heart, he is naught but a fascistic dictator.
Just as a priest is, by definition, a holy man, so too should a monarch be a righteous, wise king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit). After all, a king’s primary duty is the protection of his nation (“saṃrakṣa” , in Sanskrit), so how could a person fulfil his duty of care if he was evil and uncaring? Just as a family must be protected by its head (the father), every nation requires a good patriarch. Unless a man has the natural proclivities to do so, he ought NOT follow his father’s occupation. Therefore, a prince isn’t necessarily qualified to assume his father’s role upon the demise of his sire.
The only “valid” objection to monarchy could possibly be from those miscreants who wish to destroy society via an ILLEGITIMATE system of government (see Chapter 22) or those who are simply too stupid to understand how monarchy is the most beneficial form of governance.
Any form of governance OTHER than monarchy must be, by the process of simple deduction, controlled by either workers, businessmen, or priests (or even women!), and therefore, is intrinsically evil, since those persons are unqualified to rule a nation. If there is no aspiring monarch extant within a nation, then the best alternative is a priest (a prophet, to be more precise), but only until a monarch arises and retakes power.
The Sanskrit terms “rājanya” and “kṣatriyaḥ” refer exclusively to those very rare males whose vocation is to serve their nations as kings, and not simply any man who serves in an army or navy as a warrior. All military staff, apart from the supreme commander (the monarch) are members of the working class of society, since they are EMPLOYED by the king as soldiers. The word “kṣatriyaḥ” comes from the root noun “kṣatra”, meaning dominion, power, or supremacy, implying that one who belongs to this class of society has “supreme” dominion over all others. To presume that a soldier/warrior belongs to the ruling class simply due to the fact that both soldiers and kings sometimes partake in battle is, as mentioned above, truly hilarious. Therefore, if you are one of those Indian guys who mistakenly consider yourself to be a kṣatriyaḥ, simply because you signed-up to one of the branches of the military, or even more preposterously, the fact that one of your ancestors may have been the monarch of some part of ancient Bhārata, kindly stop your self-delusion - you are nothing more than a silly, foolish worker!
One of the most baffling rebuttals I receive to any of my precepts, is in regards to my assertion that MONARCHY is the only legitimate form of governance. I have seen a huge number of comments in social media platforms in which the authors criticize various extant governments for their multifarious wrongdoings. I often respond to such comments with the whole of Chapter 22 (and sometimes with this chapter) which proves, beyond any doubt whatsoever, the above assertion (that monarchy is the ideal form of governance). Those commenters invariably are unconvinced of the obvious wisdom of “FISH” and attack my position with truly inane retorts, particularly with the claim that democracy is inherently the best form of governance, for they are unable to see the blatant fact that the cause of the aforementioned wrongdoings is precisely the democratic (sometimes, socialistic/communistic) system that they support! It is akin to saying: “I know that slashing my wrists is causing my body to lose blood but if I don’t stop slashing my wrists, I will no longer bleed, so it I had better keep slashing my own wrists!”. The stupidity is truly astounding! Even more astonishing is the number of persons who (supposedly) have read this chapter, in which the two most common arguments against monarchy are given, yet proceed to proffer one or both of those two arguments! It seems that folly is boundless!
Is there anywhere I can go to understand how Dr. Jones interprets the Lockean social contract and the more benign state of nature Locke begins with? It certainly seems like Locke moderates, in that sense, between the presupposition of a war of all against all in Hobbes and the presupposition of social peace in Thomas.
They both see man as not essentially social and therefore the polity as something constructed rather than natural. With these reductionist anthropological foundations I think their social consequences will always be problematic, especially after the exaust the capital of Christian and natural morality that contradict them but have maintained relatively stable societies despite the problematic individualistic and voluntaristic ideology and fictions (like social contract).
22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES:
SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a certain number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or a worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him substantial wealth.
As mentioned above, although socialists and communists maintain their ideologies to be purely economic systems, it is very difficult, if not outright impossible, to divorce them from the political realm. In any case, assuming that socialism is no more than an economic organization, simply for the fact that it disallows any form of free-market exchange (which is objectively moral, or at worst, amoral - see Chapter 12), socialism and communism must not be imposed on any community, society, or nation. At worst, socialism/communism/Marxism is a truly horrific, tyrannical, totalitarian, criminal regime which leads to untold pain and misery, due to the ideologies which are intrinsically associated with Marxism, particularly a ferocious hostility towards all things dharmic, such as freedom of religion. Marxists enjoy using the terms “capitalism” and “imperialism” in rather INACCURATE and emotive ways, in order to emphasize their supposed wicked natures. I would wager that the main motivation for Karl Marx’ (as well as the multitude of vassals to his caustic ideology) hatred for free-market economies is simply out of envy for the business class. There is very little doubt in my mind, that if Herr Marx and his minions had somehow found themselves with a healthy bank balance, they would have invested their financial resources in some kind of profitable enterprise, such as establishing a business or investing in company shares or stocks, rather than distributing their wealth among the poor masses, which would be more in keeping with their inane, egalitarian ideology. If you think otherwise, then you are truly deluded, and think too highly of that parasite Marx.
Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”.
The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon.
DEMOCRACY is almost as evil as socialism, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate who promises to fulfil their petty desires, rather than one who will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law and ethics, currently available.
Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest).
The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn’t necessarily correlate with wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule. To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”. Furthermore, true democracy is impossible in practice.
Wait. Andrew Willard Jones is NOT an Integralist?!