In our modern times with our generally poor educations, narrow reading histories, and separation from traditional institutions the word “tyranny” exists in a manner well comparable to a photograph by the Hubble telescope when its lens was out of place: nebulous, and fuzzy.
Nonetheless, we know tyranny as a gut feeling – an instinct – but detached from the map of history that lays bare the contours of this evil. This, itself, was a purposed attack by the enemy on our own autonomy. To render us blind to the forest of usurpations growing all around – to learn of them, and their pain, only by tripping over them, they stole from us the knowledge of our own God given liberties. We must educate ourselves if we are to drive out the darkness with light.
To understand tyranny we must look not just to specific incidents of history, or in our own lives, but to the theory, philosophy, and theology that lays the foundations of ethics. After all, tyranny appropriately calls to mind concepts of good and evil, and nothing can be said to be either without examining the metaphysical foundations of ethics.
We know that tyranny is most often used in reference to leaders, government, and authorities. It is most often done to those hierarchically lesser than those committing it. Thus, a starting point for a definition is to say that tyranny is an evil done by an authority to one under his authority, as in a king to a subject, or a governor to a citizen.
This evil can encompass any number of things, but before we can describe what an authority must not do, we must understand what they are supposed to do. So then, what are they supposed to do? This becomes a little more complicated, as they answer will depend on your own beliefs, faith, and first principles.
I believe, per a proper reading of scripture (read: reformed), that God ordains certain civil offices and functions, and those represent the entirety of what civil government is to do, and anything more, or less than that is an evil, and, possibly, tyrannical thing. I believe the American Constitution, as originally interpreted, to be in agreement with those biblical principles. Perhaps you, being of a different mind, would dismiss the direct correlation to the almighty, but could nonetheless get behind the Constitutional principles of the founding. If you can do neither, then the rest of this article is, for you, merely academic. However, if you can do one, or both, please continue to read and heed.
Now, we see, that the United States government, when failing to live up to the minimum guarantees of the Constitution, and when exceeding such mandates, violates its duties under God, and the Constitution, and becomes tyrannical. But, you may argue, doesn’t that mean that the United States government has been a tyranny since their very first error? Well, yes, that is true. But the wisdom of the founders must be looked to, as they answered this very question.
“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,” wrote Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. So, then, we see that there are varying degrees of tyranny, that lesser tyrannies do not rise to the level of abolition or reformation of government (revolution), but that greater tyrannies may. But how do we discern between these varying degrees, and how does this all fit in biblically?
For discernment I recommend we look to the wise words of John Locke on arbitrary power, as it represents, systematically, an inarguable truism that when anyone seeks total, arbitrary control over another, one effectively enters into a state of war with that other, as a state of total arbitrary control is equivalent to a state of living entirely at the discretion of another, to be destroyed or misused at will, which is fundamentally in disagreement with the freedoms granted man by God, and attempts to put man in God’s place as sovereign. Mind you, this does not require that one is actually destroyed by another, but merely being positioned in such a way that would negate an effective defense.
What might this look like in a more practical manner? It could be well argued that prohibitions on employment, or dispossession of property would constitute total arbitrary control, as it is an attack on the very means to feed, clothe, and raise a family, to tithe, and to provide for the less fortunate. Further, the dispossession of weapons, or the ability to train with them in a manner that could effectively resist any tyrannical act would also constitute a total arbitrary control, as it would be a state of total discretion on the part of an authority to allow one to live freely, or not.
There are very many, perhaps familiar, items that would qualify as total arbitrary control: violations of bodily autonomy, prohibitions or controls on the acts of buying and selling typical goods, and, broadly, violations of the Bill of Rights of the American Constitution. Even excessive taxation to the degree of blatant theft that interferes with the raising of a family, tithing, and community might be correctly argued as a state of war under this doctrine of arbitrary control.
To examine the biblical justifications for the above look to the words of Christ, and to the American Revolutionary phrase, “Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God.” Matthew 22:37,39 “…You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,” and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” These two commands, per Christ Himself, summarize the whole of the law.
Here we must take a momentary detour, however, to properly define biblical “love,” as opposed to our modern, cultural conceptualization of “love.” To the culture, to love means to accept, tolerate, celebrate, affirm, act warmly towards, physical intimacy, various vibrations and so on. Biblically, love means little to none of that, but rather to sincerely wish for one what God wishes for one, and thereby be in agreement with God, who is a God of (biblical) love, by wishing that one would voluntarily repent, turn to God, and orient one’s actions towards Christ. Therefore, biblical love encompasses not merely warm feelings, but the actions of teaching, rebuking, and correcting (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and far, far more.
To love thy neighbor as thyself, then, one must seek the genuine best for them, as instructed by God. But, what about when somebody attempts to injure, or tyrannize your neighbor? To follow Christ’s command under such circumstances in a fallen and imperfect world sometimes requires the Christian to stand up against, or even to bear the sword against and take the lives of those who would destroy the innocent neighbor, and this violence is biblically an act of love for one’s neighbor, and Godly. There is even a prayer speaking to this in scripture, “Blessed be the LORD, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle…” (Psalm 144:10).
When Jesus, who understood his ministry on Earth was at a close, and the path for the apostles would be dangerous, said to them, “take your money and a traveler’s bag. And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one!” (Luke 22:36), he was instructing them to be prepared to kill in defense of the innocent. Swords were weapons of war, and Jesus instructed Christians to possess them for a reason. Right about now you should be starting to see the problems with arguments of “Christian Pacifism,” and that they’re almost certainly the result of the Marxist dialectical infiltration of the Church to render the Bride of Christ without effective earthly defense, but that’s a topic for another day.
Now, to put rubber in contact with road (read: Praxis) we must begin to look at specifics, pragmatism, and strategy. Clearly, then, as described above, modern day America is a tyranny that substantially exceeds the margins of lesser, and is positioned fully as enacting a state of war on American citizens across a spectrum of arbitrary controls. This is the case with the constant efforts to prohibit ownership of weapons and training, the arbitrary investigating, jailing and show trials of political opponents, prohibitions on movement, employment, and buying/selling by dissidents, the unvaccinated, unmasked, and uncredentialed, constant violations of bodily autonomy, prohibitions on worship and living the faith, and so on.
So, what is to be done? As you may expect, the answer is Praxis: the wedding of theory and actions. The theory of what is to be done is reasonably logical: that so long as options exist other than the sword that might be reasonably efficacious those options are to be preferred to violence, but once no civil options that may be said reasonably likely to succeed remain violence is to be preferred to total arbitrary control, as war is already upon us.
So, what options exist? Well, frankly, quite a lot. As it stands, it is for many only the federal leviathan representing the abject tyranny lording over them, while the State governments remain, perhaps, viable. So, the path becomes quite clear: the State government(s) must take an absolute position of resistance to the federal government, and a posture of defense on behalf of their citizens. They must do this immediately, however, or their legitimacy will be in question as failing to live up to their own responsibilities for the station they occupy as ordained by God, under the Constitution, and under the doctrine of the lesser magistrate, which states that any lesser authority has the duty and right to enact defense on behalf of their charge against a higher authority who is acting as a tyrant (and, therefore, not truly an authority as described by God in Romans 13, but of a usurper of that office).
The States are now the path forward, and we will, realistically, need multiple states to adopt this confrontational approach to the federal usurpers in order to spread them thinly enough to avoid being entirely overrun. Which brings us to the next question, what might this look like, and what can we expect?
The next step is official nullification and interposition by the several states to clearly and boldly declare federal law null and void within their borders, federal enforcement agents to be viewed and treated as bandits within the state borders to be arrested and expelled on sight, order the prohibition of the federalization of the state guard, the requirement of loyalty oaths to the state and State Constitution by peace officers and guard personnel, and so on. This should involve acts and resolutions by the legislatures and executive actions to this effect.
Yes, that quite strong. Yes, we are absolutely at that time – we’re quite late in the response, actually.
What can we expect from the federal government? Massive psychological and information warfare campaigns including media and others, attempts to radicalize towards political violence, suspension of all federal monies to the state(s), testing the resolve by sending in masses of federal agents, attempting to nationalize the guard and place the executive and any other cooperating officials under arrest for treason, and so forth, but, notably, I do not believe they would authorize a full invasion of the state(s) – it would be deeply unpopular, and likely tip the scales towards widescale civil war that the federal government cannot win against many states.
So, what are the counter moves the state must make, and how must the board be positioned to account for the above? First, attempts to send large numbers of federal police or troops must be physically blocked, and that probably means checkpoints, and other measures. Should they make it past it will be up to State and local police, and possibly the guard or militia to detain and expel them. The suspension of all federal dollars to the state should be met with the suspension of all federal taxes paid from the state flowing to the federal government. If I’m wrong, and anything like an invasion appears likely, it should result in a full callup of the unorganized militia to drill and equip.
This is all in consideration of a path towards a nonviolent solution. However, at all times in a fallen world nonviolence must be backed by the threat of violence. The stronger that threat the greater its capacity to keep peace. If we want peace, we must begin to consider what the alternatives look like. They don’t look good. We really don’t want to go there, but that’s our default future if we don’t get very serious very quickly.
This is the best philosophical analysis I’ve read yet of the situation at hand. Tyranny is here and now. There damn sure needs to be a “great reset” but it ain’t the great reset they’ve got in mind.