Friday, August 7, 2020

True facts about COVID-19

We don't know too much exactly about this but let's debunk some of the obvious myths by stating what we know to be true.

Wearing a mask won't stop the spread indoors. No, seriously, it won't. The virus's spread depends on airborne circulation. This means that no matter how much you dampen the moisture particles' spread with a mask or other facial covering, there will be particles to circulate around.

We're not all going to die from it! Most of us won't. In fact, the death rate is currently estimated to be 0.3%. That's still three times higher than seasonal flu but it also is not terrible.

Trump isn't killing us with the virus! No, seriously, I've come across death cult members trying to tell me that Trump is to blame for the COVID-19 deaths as if he actually spread the disease. The Lincoln Project is really demented in trying to pin the blame on Trump here. Early on, he was following the advice of his "experts" who were telling him not to lockdown, not to close borders, not to think this disease was something of concern. He listened to them. He would have been vilified if he hadn't listened to his experts then! No one can actually be held responsible unless they actually directly caused it. So unless there is sufficient proof that the virus is a biological weapon, we probably shouldn't be rushing to sue China over it either. (I do maintain that it leaked from a lab but that is different than stating it is a biological weapon.) Further, Trump isn't killing our economy. In fact, he was the only one who warned that these lockdowns would produce an effect of killing our economy, increasing mental illness rates, and leaving people impoverished. He let the local leaders take care of most everything. And the local leaders that decided to open up again were all chastised by the press. What is it exactly they want? Less infections? Less deaths? People back to work? Or Trump gone. The people pinning the blame on Trump here aren't actually principled, they're pursuing political power.

A vaccine won't end up getting us back to work! This is true. Just to put it bluntly, as long as the media sees people getting infected with COVID-19, they're going to continue in this zombified state of demanding perpetual shutdowns. A vaccine won't do diddly, especially with the virus mutating.

We've lost containment of the virus! This is most important, really. And it shows also the contrast and comparison. Were the lockdowns worth it? They didn't contain anything. The disease spread. All they did was destroy our livelihoods, our church communities, and our relationships with our fellow human beings.

The virus doesn't play politics! Listen, whether you're out protesting police brutality, or gathered at a Trump rally, or actively pillaging and raping our inner cities, the virus is going to spread. That said, Americans have every right to protest lockdowns and they have every right to protest police brutality. But apparently, some governors played their totalitarian hands and said protesting lockdowns threatened public health. That was never criticized as totalitarian by the "Never-Trumpers" who said he was playing fascist by ordering barbarians to be rounded up and sent to prison (not peaceful protesters!).

COVID-19 is not the only cause of death! Okay, this one really gets to me. I've joked about it, I've satirized it, I've sarcastically jested about it. But seriously, ever since COVID-19 started all our public health officials have been dedicated to is mitigating COVID-19. They suggest people avoid the hospitals, they've closed our mental institutions, they've forbidden in-person psychiatric sessions, Governor Rot-Face in Virginia doesn't even have enough beds for his psychiatric wards! The more we act like COVID-19 is the only cause of death, the more our public officials will be responsible for non-COVID-19 deaths. It is reprehensible that we are acting this way. And they'll have a lot more blood than they can pin on Trump. Who's the death cult member now?

Finally, COVID-19 is not an excuse to play party politics. Whether you're Democrat, Indpendent, Green Party, Republican, or Libertarian, Monarchist, etc., we can all stand together against the nonsensical lockdowns of the government. And only if we do this can we expect lockdowns to end. I posted an apology on Facebook where I mentioned how the COVID-19 lockdowns have negatively affected my mental health. So many people flocked in support to like it that I know. People on various different ends of the political spectrum. Lockdowns are not a matter that are grounded in party politics. Rational people can see and understand how the disconnection is negatively affecting people. The question is really more of a matter of whether we choose to cower in fear of our totalitarian overlords or denounce them as naked in front of their faces!

The demonic end result of preaching toxic masculinity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHzO5BXwl3I
This is a disturbing story of a boy who was diagnosed with ODD without any examination. ODD produces a higher rate of testosterone than normal. Hence, to counter this, estrogen was prescribed to him to counter-act the estrogen. But there is actually no scientific proof of this. The lawyer explains everything about the case and the boy was forced to receive the estrogen while in juvenile detention.

The culture that proclaims masculinity is toxic is an infectious disease spreading throughout our nation and it's a pandemic in our nation that has been breaking out for the last four years if I remember accurately. It's worse than the COVID-19 disease that's been spreading because men are the backbone to culture. It's worsened by the delusional egalitarian "Christians" who contend that women are every way the same in equality as men since God created both in his image. There is a problem with that anthropological theology. God created man and woman in his image. The man alone is not complete without the woman and the woman alone is not complete without the man. Rather than embracing the wholly complementarian nature of anthropological theology that God has ordered, the egalitarian mind-set is determined and infected with a Satanic thought to destroy and impair the relationship between men and women. It is set to teach women that she can do all things without men. But the image of God is not complete with only one gender.

Our old Archimandrite called this modernistic attack on masculinity demonic. It is demonic. It is a direct attack on the holistic nature of the imago dei. It is anthropological iconoclasm. The barbaric mentality demands that men are a problem and the problem is their inherent masculine characteristics. The solution is that men must toss away their masculinity. But the image of God is masculine and feminine. If the only good qualities are feminine qualities then we worship not God but goddess. And goddess is a demonic succubus that inhabits the worst qualities of even men. Rather than praising the genuine nature of masculinity and the quality characteristics associated with masculinity, culture has waged war against masculinity and has declared an iconoclastic crusade against the image of God.

So it is not even surprising that such a horrific, cruel and unusual punishment would come into existence in our culture in such a time. Especially in a Satanically possessed state as California. The estrogen prescribed to the man was not a medical treatment, it was a pseudo-scientific theological attack on the young man's masculinity itself. It was designed to turn him into a female. Of course, biology cannot be denied. If one is born a man, they are a man. Culture may deny reality as much as it wants. It may insist women can become men and men can become women but culture is wrong. Women are women, men are men. Transgenderism is a psychological illness, it is not a praiseworthy life-choice. The attempt to "de-man" the young man is doomed to fail but it is clear to see that culture has not waged a war against "toxic" characteristics mistakenly associated with masculinity. Culture in fact, has declared masculinity itself to be toxic. The proponents of toxic masculinity are bowing down before the genderly euphoric Baphomet deity. The goat-whore with the breasts that looks better when a sword is run through its bowels. That one.

Culture has first started its experimentation to cleans us of masculinity. This is why our culture has become increasingly over-sensitive, unintelligent, weak, savage. For it is nobility, intellect, reason, strength, and resilience that are associated with masculinity. But those must be cleansed by our crippling American culture now. Those must be removed and vanquished. Why? Because the American ethos has determined that masculinity is toxic and toxic masculinity must be defeated. But it is not masculinity that must be defeated. It is the toxic response to the noble characteristics of masculinity that must be repudiated. That is the disease. No corona virus could ever come close to the disease that has spread into our culture that would label masculinity as toxic.

Friday, July 31, 2020

The Lincoln Project goes up in smoke!

Well those neo-con blokes at The Lincoln Project really went off the rails this week. For those who haven't heard of the so-called Lincoln Project, be grateful. Very grateful. These are a group of so-called "Republicans" who have decided to head the "Republicans against Trump" coalition for 2020. Their main goal is to persuade enough GOP voters to either become so fed up with Trump that they don't vote or to tilt to vote for Biden or third party. The folks over at The Lincoln Project clearly want Biden to win 2020. But they are engaging in very odd and deceitful tactics to do so, and this week, they really hit rock-bottom. Their Twitter feed is more revolting than the President's that they want to eject from the White House!

Not even corn pop ran this many bad dudes.
Not even corn pop ran this many bad dudes!
For starters, these dudes are bad dudes. They're lying scumbags and news media is now starting to do their home work to figure this out. Only one of the founders of the so-called Lincoln Project is actually still a registered Republican to begin with. Secondly, they appear to have no grasp on independent voters and their target audience seems to only be Republicans. I highly doubt the amount of Republicans they are persuading is as big as it would appear. I'm an independent, what have I to do with Bush and McCain and Romney? These are the kind of Republicans they've supported in the past. A war criminal that brought us into Iraq and Afghanistan, a treasonous neo-con who wanted every single nation that wasn't the U.S. bombed to smitherines, and a Wall Street corporate hologram. They must surely know the Democrat grassroots won't want anything to do with them after the "revolution" is completed, right?

But they really went off the deep end this week. Starting with such glorious tweets as the following.
 
But their ultimate self-inflicted wound this week came when they ran their ad against GOP Senator Susan Collins. When their mission is to go after the "most right wing" of the GOP congressman and they're wasting money going after the left-wing Susan Collins, a pro-abortion socialist in favor of expanding big government healthcare, you know we've got some hacks on our hands. It should have been telling when their Twitter feed was taken over by a college graduate with a degree women and gender studies but now the cat's out of the bag!

The advertisement was not just an awful waste of money to spend on a neo-con left-wing GOP senator, it also portrayed an horrible ignorance of history of the twentieth century. Something only a millenial college graduate with a degree in women and gender studies could do any way, certainly not a bunch of neo-cons still trying to masquerade as Republicans when they've already abandoned that party long ago. Though their ad against Susan Collins proves that they're not actually for any Republican reform any more by now. But then they go out and accuse Susan Collins of McCarthyism?!? What exactly is McCarthyism? McCarthyism is a paranoid delusional syndrome named after Senator Joseph McCarthy who accused his political opponents of being spies and agents of...Russia. What is McCarthyism? It's a delusional syndrome where one accuses one's political opponents of being...foreign agents, specifically of...Russia. Sound familiar? Who are the real McCarthyists? Oh, yeah, that would be The Lincoln Project.

The irony is that Susan Collins is not accused of McCarthyism for flat-out defending the innocence of Trump in regards to "collusion with Russia" which we know by now never happened to begin with, she is accused of McCarthyism for maintaining our rule of law in that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The ad is a whole lot of bunk, a garbage piece of delusional paranoia, and frankly just a conspiratorial lie. And yet the new American Left has decided that conspiracy theories are the new "norm" and questioning conspiracy theories means they can now re-define the game. But McCarthyism is in the history books and its meaning is well-established. People who know history not only will know that it's a lie and a damned lie to accuse Susan Collins of such, but also, congratulations, The Lincoln Project just wasted money going after a liberal GOP politician that no one is worried about maintaining the seat of any way. Except maybe Susan Collins.

To add insult to injury, there was also a Tweet on Thursday from The Lincoln Project demanding Trump resign. Oh, I thought they cared about getting him out of office democratically. Maybe they realize their organization is being exposed as the joke it is. Or maybe they realize that Trump is going to be re-elected.

Thursday, July 30, 2020

The Demonic nature of identity politics


This conversation was part of one I had with Michelle Maher on Twitter in regards to demons that we deal with. For me, my personal demon is autism. I am high functioning. But it is hard for me to understand social cues that appear normally for other people. Sometimes, I view people as attacking me when they aren't. And a lot of overloading situations lead to what is called a "meltdown". These are ways of handling that stress build-up.

But each autistic person is different. None of us come with a manual. Irregardless of our disability, we are not all alike. My mother very frequently likes to get me involved in activities with other autistic people. Activities and groups in which autistic people are all lumped together into a collective pool. That's a problem and that stems from an identity politics emerging in the autistic community. I prefer not to bring attention to my own autism for obvious reasons. Because I am not defined by my disability. I am defined by who I am even though other people may want me to be identified by my disability. And that reveals the demonic nature of identity politics that Michelle Maher brings attention to here.

We are no longer judged by our individual souls. We are reduced to being a part of a group and we receive collective judgment rather than the individual judgment that Jesus sees us. Liberal Protestants are correct in that American politics has led to a poisonous individualism. But there is also another side to the coin that liberal Protestants neglect. The poisonous collectivism. The Church's social teaching maintains both solidarity and subsidiarinism. I will never run a #ActuallyAutistic because I am not trying to score points on the grounds of my disability. We have our own stories and our own souls.

Just like each white person is different, each black person is different, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, etc. So is every autistic person different, every OCD person different, ADHD, ADD, etc. Going back to my misjudged social cues, there was a time I encountered the Crazy Church Lady before having much of a developed relationship with her. She commented on the blue birds outside the church reminding her that Spring was here. I believed she was attacking me. Telling me I should not look outside the window. She still does not understand me fully. She does not quite understand that I ask these repeated questions for clarification in a stressful situation. "Why can't I look outside the window?" "Why are you telling me I can't look outside the window?" Etc. Recently, it was "Where is [your daughter]?" I am a mixture when it comes to touch. Some people have realized this...like our deaconess who will ask if she may touch me before she touches me with holy water or says a prayer of exorcism over me. Crazy Church Lady has not...I should probably help her with that. She deemed it appropriate to give me an uninvited hug at that time and some reading this know what happened next and so I will not go into detail.

If you meet one autistic person, you meet one autistic person. I have difficulties with the groups that my mom would like me to get involved in with other autistic people precisely because they force me into an identity group that mitigates my own individual soul. That is a poisonous collectivism. We are meant to share the same goals in theosis, we are not meant to be reduced to the level of sameness. We are not all legs or arms or eyes or ears. As the body of Christ, we are collected together in different body parts. God is Trinity. He is three different persons. We are called to be collected the same way he is. But by reducing our lives to a certain disability or health malady, we are enforcing a demonic collectivism on people that destroys their individual souls. The souls that Christ wants us to have are unique and individual. But souls that collectively unite and come together in Him. I am autistic but not like other autistic people.

Friday, July 24, 2020

The intra-Catholic warfare!

Yeah, Christians still treat each other like crap even after all these years. That is because we are all sinners and fall way short of the glory of God. Recently, in the intra-Catholic circles, we see an obsession with Vatican II and that if one does not accept Vatican II as a legitimate council, then one must be banished and chastised to the outer nether. Or if one accepts Vatican II, one is a dirty and filthy liberal. Or if one accepts Vatican II with qualifications, then they aren't a true Catholic either. The neo-Catholics as I refer to them are really something else though. Going so far as to proclaim that one must accept every jot and tittle of what a Pope says or one is not a "True Catholic®" and yadda, yadda, yadda. Or the accusation that such Traditionalists are "Protestantizing!" by opposing a heresy that a Pope has held to even though the Eastern Orthodox are never accused of such. It is really mind-boggling. I recently heard that Taylor Marshall is a "schismatic" (he's not).

The problem is that such concepts come from a radically hyper-interpretation of Vatican I which, ironically, is sorely contradicted by Vatican II. Vatican II sought out to clarify what Vatican I taught. How do we have an infallible Pope? How is one man free from error on doctrinal decisions? Can it be possible he could lead us into heresy? And Vatican II actually limited and favored a heavily more limited view on the subject of Papal infallibility. A good work on the subject would Primacy in the Church ed. by John Chryssavgis. I think there is a favoritism toward the usage of more liberalized theology in there and so I only recommend with qualifications but what is found in there is a theology of Vatican II that favors a staunchly more limited view on Papal infallibility.

Of course, the nonsense of the pro-Vatican II Catholics in stating that one accept the full demands of Vatican II is that Vatican II never actually makes any anathemas. It was set out as a pastoral council. Such a kind of council is unprecedented. I'm not going to waste time arguing whether it was a legitimate council or not but I have seen arguments from some Catholics that Vatican II may not have actually been a council at all in consideration of the prerequisites of a council. Even further, the fact that there are no anathemas would indicate that whatever "dogmas" it attempted to define cannot actually be forced as Catholic orthodoxy. This generally leads me to mockingly jest sometimes, "Can't excommunicate me, it's against your religion." The ultra-hardcore neo-Catholic doesn't really see the contradiction that he has set up for himself. He tends to have his cake and eat it too.

Claiming that one "support" Vatican II if one is traditionalist is also highly deceptive. When what you mean is not supporting Vatican II on the basis of all the previous tradition but instead supporting all the previous tradition under the interpretation of Vatican II, you are not actually maintaining to tradition. The "spirit of Vatican II" crap that has emerged in post-Vatican II discourse is probably what led Cardinal Vigano to indicting the post-Vatican II era of the Church as having mutated the Church into two churches. As Crazy Church Lady would tell me, Vatican II, pre-Vatican II, it's all the same Holy Mother Church. I think Vatican II has led to certain liberalized theology that it never intended to lead but after having read The Great Facade, I think there is a lot to say for a traditionalist reading of the precepts of the council. Especially when one looks at the Anglican Ordinariate, one could make the case that was what the Novus Ordo was meant to look like rather than the ad populum priests all over.

Then there is whole "Pope Francis Catholic" nonsense. I have no way of judging the humility of Pope Francis, but if he is truly a humble player, I'm certain he gets a chuckle about the lunacy of such a demented term. One should think of the First Letter to the Corinthians to understand how weird and puzzling such an idea is. St. Paul is thankful that he did not baptize individuals but only preached the Gospel. Not because he's changed his mind that baptism is not important but because the Holy Spirit's activity is what is important. The Church does not operate under a "spirit of Vatican II" any more that there is a "Pope Francis Catholic". In fact, these terms really make us look like we're having the same problems as the Corinthians did! One person said, "I'm with Apollos!" Another said, "I'm with Paul!" And another said, "I'm with Christ!" With these "spirit of Vatican II", "Pope Francis Catholic", and "Traditionalist Catholic" stuff, we really sound exactly like the...Corinthians! It's nonsense! There's no "Pope Francis Catholic" any more than there's a "spirit of Vatican II" and good grief, all Catholics are traditionalists!

Pope Francis is not the only Pope that ever lived and there will most certainly be another. Vatican II is not the only council and there will most certainly be another. The tradition will continue as it has and we'll grow in knowledge of the Holy Spirit. There will be bad Popes and there will be good Popes. That's the way history plays it out. But one is not "more Catholic" based on their adherence to a "spirit of Vatican II" that didn't show up until the 60s and one is not "more Catholic" based on their adherence to the homilies of Pope Francis. This is absurdity. The Church of Corinth is us right now. The Church of Corinth reflects what we've become. Such scuffles are nothing new in the Church and the remedy remains the same. The remedy is to restore ourselves to proper worship of Christ.

The Triads Book 1, Ch 1 - St. Gregory Palamas

St. Gregory Palamas starts off his most famous work The Triads with an explanation of knowledge in the Church fathers compared to the Pagan philosophy. Reading it, I am amazed by how much this chapter already compares to today's world where we are practically run by Teachers' Unions telling us they need more money to educate our children or our children will be disadvantaged especially seeing as they seem more than content to declare themselves utterly useless as they resort to online education. I don't care how long it takes to put together an online class, an online class will never be as great as an in-person class since humans are naturally relational animals. That is what we are created for.

St. Gregory Palamas begins by affirming that we possess the use of reason within ourselves, sin has disabled these divine images within ourselves from being seen (1.3). If you read my series on original sin, you will see this is the similar view that the Latins have, if not the exact same under slightly different worded language. There is a distinction between the divine knowledge which is sought and the worldly knowledge which is foolishness (1.8). The knowledge that St. Gregory opposes is the knowledge that is lacking in love. The knowledge that puffs up. True knowledge in God is derived from love. It builds (1.9). Knowledge from worldly education is not true spiritual knowledge (1.10). It is different and stands in opposition to the spiritual knowledge.

The knowledge that comes from the Hellenic philosophy not only is opposed to God, it also has a demonic source (1.15). Plato appeals to demons, Hesiod seeks nine demons in his entire Theogony. This is a scathing assessment of classical philosophy to a Western mind but it is important for the Christian to understand. Any truth that is to be discovered in a heresy is not because God is the source of the heresy or  because the heresy leads to God but because God is the source of all true knowledge and all false knowledge is a corruption of the true knowledge. A psyche infected by demons  "turns toward evil", while the "holy and disciplined spirit will flee from deceit" (1.16). The Hellenic philosophy cannot have knowledge in it. The true philosopher (lover of wisdom) will ascend toward the wisdom of God.

Much to the chagrin of the worldly education, St. Gregory deems it as empty and unnecessary to the spiritual life. "[W]orldly education serves natural knowledge. It cannot become spiritual unless it is allied to faith and love in God" (1.9). St. Gregory condemns the men who attempt to force worldly education and worldly knowledge on Christians (1.5). "It is the Hellenic heresy that concentrates all its enthusiasm and interest on those who research the science of such things" (1.3). This should be thought of most importantly when it comes to the state enforcing that all must learn a certain set of knowledges. I have often heard it said of me by many a Christian that I am "smart" and I "know my stuff" and I always bat down such sentiment because to bask in worldly knowledge is not gaining anything. Certainly, it is helpful to know one's Scriptures, to know the church fathers, and to know the doctrines and precepts of the faith. These are the only thing of value to know. But one is not saved by knowing The Philokalia, indeed it has not been translated wholly into English, or the works of St. John Chrysostom, or St. Augustine, or St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. The saints should very well be read and learned from but knowledge of their works is not unto salvation. Knowledge of the Gospel leads to transformation. Understanding is not key. Faith precedes understanding. Faith is key.

But does St. Gregory condemn the learning of worldly things? No. Actually, St. Gregory Palamas was quite a learned man himself. The "Second Theologian" said of St. Athanasius, "the benefit gained from his secular studies was that he learned to define what he judged it good to disregard" (1.6). Unless one has adopted a monastic life, no one is prohibited from learning the worldly knowledges (1.12). It is how they are used that is important. He uses the analogy of snake venom as the flesh of snakes can be turned into an antidote to use against itself when the victim is suffering from the bite (1.10). It is important and sometimes necessary to use the false knowledge against itself and to correct it. This is where discernment comes in and as a soul seeks the true wisdom of God, they begin to see how valueless the worldly wisdom is.

Tuesday, July 14, 2020

Monarchisms in the Age of Enlightenment (3 - Bayle and Hume on Monarchy)

Bayle and Hume on Monarchy, Scepticism, and Forms of Government - Sally Jenkinson
For the most part, people tend to speak favorably of the form of government of their home country. It is typical for Americans to praise a republican form of government and to praise the American Revolution and to scorn a monarchial form of government since that is what the American republic broke away from. But Bayle and Hume approach their theories of government from a slightly different perspective. Both are under monarchies but "[b]oth followed the sceptical mode in philosophy, and both applied critical argument to received constitutional ideas of their age" (Monarchisms, 62). Though sceptical this does not mean that their views were not pragmatic. They were "committed to a the promotion of an Enlightened society" and while long known for their philosophical works, are now becoming more known for their political works as well (62).

Scepticism can be understood different ways in different contexts. For the purpose of the study on Hume and Bayle, it is necessary to come to a definition on how scepticism can be applied to their approaches on political philosophy. "In epistomology the word 'scepticism' is used mainly in opposition to to the word 'dogmatism'" (63). Dogmatic thinkers appeal to authority to support their arguments and pre-conceived ideas. Sceptical thinkers refrain from passing judgment. This is the trend that is seen in the writings of Bayle and Hume. Sceptical thinkers will question theories "of government advanced by a rival" (64). They may not necessarily promote a theory. He questions "both the validity of a theory, [and] also the good faith of those who advance it" (64). Finally, the sceptical thinker puts in place an alternative theory to the one demolished.

The three main classical theories on monarchy are monarchy as rule by one person, monarchy as rule by one person in the interests of all, and monarchy as power transferred by inheritance. In Aristotle's six-fold system, "government could be that of one, the few, or the many" (65). Thus, the inverse relations of monarchy, aristocracy, and polity as opposed to tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. But this does not mean that a monarchy need not be governed in such a way as to promote the interests of all. And for monarchies, it was commonly argued that if power was routinely transferred to the ruler's heir, "there was less risk of violent conflict among contenders for office" (66). Thus, a monarchy was typically seen as a guarantor of more stability.

Bayle's position is a critique of those who praise a certain form of government over another. Bayle begins with a critique of Hobbes. Hobbes "had once attempted through his translation of Thucydides to persuade his compatriots that disorder and confusion follow from the republican form of government" (67). But this would never convince someone with anti-monarchial positions as they would already approach the question with the position that republican governments provide order. Such was Bayle's reasoning. "Bayle notes that different circumstances produce different forms of government" but the one that keeps the peace the best is the one that is to be praised (67). Bayle, in his Dictionnaire, makes similar arguments against hereditary power. While other forms of government have their weak points, they are not "as are kings, susceptible to infancy or decrepitude" (67-68). The reign of Charles VI "precipitated 'the darkest and most turbulent dissention' in France" (68).

Hume makes the attempt to argue for a hereditary monarchy. In his Treatise on Human Nature, he reasons that "men are commonly induced to place the son of their late monarchy on the throne and suppose him to inherit his father's authority...the presumed consent of the father, the imitation of succession to to private families, the interest, which the state has in chusing the person, who is most powerful, and has the most numerous followers; all these reasons lead men to prefer the son of their late monarch to any other person" (68-69). Hume is inclined to the position that "humankind is apt to base its institutions on imagination, so that even an act of chance, conquest, is characteristically transformed into a tradition" (69). If government is supposed to secure society from such convulsions, then the greatest risk to disorder would be a doubt emerging in the line of succession. Thus, a hereditary monarchy would erase such doubts. Hume's belief is that governments eventually arise naturally. Government development is to arise naturally and the most natural form of government would have to be a one ruler society, a monarchy. Yet, he also maintains that government can be oppressive, so oppressive that people might be justified in revolting against it (70).

In his "weak case for hereditary monarchy and prudential, retrospective, case for resistance to tyranny, Hume manages to defend the status quo of the constitution of church and state in Britain in the eighteenth century" (70-71). The Revolution of 1688 is defended, "whereby the monarchy was transferred from a Catholic dynasty to a Protestant dynasty...he defends the establishment...of a new hereditary monarchy...'the linear heir' - is likely to provide a more stable transfer...the mixed hereditary monarchy is superior to the absolute hereditary monarchies of the European continent" (71). The civil sovereign must "protect society from disorder as a means to the end of promoting enlightenment" (71).

For both Bayle and Hume, "[a] government must be neither so tyrannical that it is overthrown, nor so pusillanimous that it dissolves into tumult and chaos" (72). Experience taught that society was at risk if the monarch did not support some form of public religion, though it was not necessary as to which religious preference the monarch supported. Bayle and Hume defended "the absolute sovereignty of any regime as a necessary...condition of public peace" (73). Diplomatically, monarchy had to be supported in France, republicanism in Geneva, and mixed government in the Netherlands. Neither accept dogmatical ways of thinking in "their preferred alternatives to the ideas of their opponents" (74).