International Relations

When it comes to international relations, the best form of global government is anarchy. Anarchy is conducive to pluralism. Alas, there exist five umbrella corpus of thought; Classical Realism/Realism; Structural Realism/Neorealism; Liberalism/Idealism; Radicalism/NeoMarxism; and Constructivism/Globalism. Geopolitical theories aside; three important facts must be considered; first—world peace cannot be achieved through policy and must be personally displayed and demanded by the individual to their government, anarchy is the best approach to international relations, thus negates a global state; second—non-interventionist multipolar pluralism leaves sanctions and trading as the minimal components needed to maintain diplomatic foreign relations; and third—the prospect of capitalism unites nations; yet can also be weaponized under the pretext of modernization, yet whose strategy is dependency and nation exploitation. Thus, Neorealism/Anarchism represents the best form of international relations; as it allows for supernatural control over the realm of nations; yet the contemporary age demands a more radical approach. Thus, opting for radicalism. Biblically, forcing others to take action is inherently wrong; the same principle applies to geopolitical theory —especially forced participation through fiscal coercion, and false dichotomy in order to attain a state of dependency; diverting faith from God and unto the materializer of resources. Neorealism allows for supernatural control over the realm of nations; yet in the contemporary age of international geopolity; the actualization of international pluralism/global anarchism may demand a far more radical antithesis.

Classical Realism

        Classical Realism is a traditional idealist theory that uses history and philosophy to deduce foreign policy. Classical Realists utilize history and philosophy to produce political theories, and base their theories on human nature. Traditionally this was an optimal practice as history reveals the most important aspects of success, tribulations, and detriments encountered throughout polity. In contemporary politics, this approach fails to account for the extreme changes throughout the world. Jurist and geopolitical theorist Hans Morgenthau (1904–1980) believed Realism to be “the best explanation for international behavior,” in his 1948 book Politics Among Nations, (Dooley, K., Ch. 10-3a). Morgenthau is responsible for “transforming one of power in classic realism;” by denoting that “power was not the goal but a means of achieving the dual objectives of national security and survival,” (Dooley, K., Ch. 10-3a). Dooley asserts that “the political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere…[and] thinks in terms of interest defined as power…[yet] must “subordinate [other standards of thought] to those of politics,” (Dooley, K., Ch. 10-3a). Realism deposes but does not negate economics, law, and morality.

Structural Realism/Neorealism

Per Neorealism; international anarchy is the best method of governance; thereby producing a laissez-faire approach. Structural Realists/Neorealists look at quantitative data and base their theories on the existing system of international relations, looking at the individual power of each state although power politics helps to determine state behavior, it is the structure of the international system that best determines it, (Dooley, K., Ch. 10-3a). Kenneth Waltz’s (1924–2013) geopolitical theory, was revealed in his 1959 book Man, the State, and War; whereby three levels of analysis were implemented to decipher between (a) the individual; (b) the state; (c) international level to explain why certain states go to war, (Dooley, K., Ch. 10-3c). Waltz disclosed later introduced the concept of Neorealism in his 1979 book Theory of International Politics. Neorealism builds off of Classical Realism but does not denounce its foundational position of “international anarchy;” both approaches are merited in refining an analysis and necessary theory when navigating international relations, (Dooley, K., Ch. 10-3a). Waltz’s geopolitical theory perceives the international state of relations as anarchic, whose fate is left up to God. This is likely the most Biblical view of all five schools of thought—yet neglects two very important considerations; vacating its viability. In contemporary politics, Neorealism first fails to account for domestic policy; secondly it produces a unilateral declaration reliant on the adherence of all nations. This means American foreign policy is left up to God, without a world government—but does not preclude the formation of global regimes, and the rise of nefarious forces wishing to abolish the anarchic world order.
        Neorealism is most representative of American foreign policy, as it lacks the formation of a global government; yet as of contemporary times, American foreign policy has begun to sway in favor of Constructivism and the creation of a global state, facilitated by the United Nations. Samuel Huntington (1927–2008) reminds us that despite the plethora of political ideologies present in American polity; “[t]he great political ideologies of the twentieth century include liberalism, socialism, anarchism, corporatism, Marxism, communism, social democracy, conservatism, nationalism, fascism, and Christian democracy. They all share one thing in common: they are products of Western civilization. No other civilization has generated a significant political ideology. The West, however, has never generated a major religion,” (Huntington, S., pp. 53-54). Despite the radical ideologies present in America, we must not forget that every ideology is empowered by God’s Holy Spirit at work in the individual; no matter the allegiance to geopolitical ideology. The best approach is a hands-off Godly approach, and leading by example; thus bolstering the domestic economy and civic prosperity.

Liberalism/Idealism

Liberalism/Idealism lacks the fortitude and resilience through its submission to government policy. If humans are naturally good—as the Liberal declares—why does man need to “cooperate with the state for survival”, and to “avoid conflict?” Institutional Radicalism is itself idealistic liberalism; thus producing a godless humanist society persisting through an institutional myth that upholds subservience to the state. Christians are called to smash the alters of idols; a radical proposal to uphold His image—yet many contemporary Christians fear speaking their minds lest reaping the wrath of the autocratic regime.

Radicalism/Neo-Marxism (Institutional)

Neo-Marxist Antonio Negri (1933-2023) and Michael Hardt believe “the theory of value has ceased to fulfill its rationalizing function in political economy…[the] [p]olitical economy has become a deontological science. In other words, the project of the political economy of conventions and communication is the control of an immeasurable productive reality.” (Negri, A.; Hardt, M., p. 87) and proposes to ask “[w]hat do we want and what can we do?” (Negri, A., Hardt, M., p. 88). Despite their institutional affiliations; Communism, Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Plutocracy, Bureaucracy, Technocracy, Iatrarchy, Totalitarianism, and Globalism; are all non-radical and non-epical—renouncing individual sovereignty and personal power to a collective government is the most unradical thing that an individual can do. Yet the majority of radical political theories feature an individual call to action that encourages the individual to take their sovereignty back from the system, thus this principle is conducive to Christianity; whilst the Bible decrees obedience to authority, it also places God first in all circumstances. Anything impeding our relationship with God, must be destroyed; for the intervention to personal faith is the diffusion of worship, thereby impacting a personal covenant with God—in favor of idols. Radicalism includes smashing these worldly idols, mandating that we lead by example, and do not force faith unto any gentile.
The difference between [institutional] quasi-radicalism and [supernatural] radicalism is the essence of the individual. Freedom given is freedom lost; likely to remain indefinitely irreconcilable throughout the duration of one’s existence. Karl Marx got it wrong. Socialism is and will never be a viable solution, especially in global affairs; but Socialist theorists’ radical passion of dissent against government tyranny must be observed. Moreover, their deduction that power corrupts and man is naturally subject to greed are observations that can be discerned by reading radical political theorists. Sorelianism shows that not only are the bourgeoisie corrupt, but the proletariat are equally subject to inherent depravity and violent thoughts. Georges Sorel conceded that “the people have become convinced that contemporary Governments cannot be overthrown by riots like those of July 14 and August 10, they have ceased to look upon the events of these days as epical,” (Sorel, G., Loc. 569). Riots, and violence are not epic, nor radical. Feuerbachian theory used The Essence of Christianity to reveal the inadequacies of thought regimes and their potential for weaponization through its misinterpretation as a religion. This is not to imply that Christianity is not a religion, but to acknowledge the many offshoots of doctrine that claim to be affiliates, yet bear no recognizable image of Christ in their dogmatic operation. One positive aspect of the radical thought behind these passionate and depraved men is consistent revolution. Through a Biblical worldview, we can see its correlation to Scripture—the prospect of anarchy in the face of tyranny burns inside every man; waiting to be activated and empowered by God’s Holy Spirit. Radicalism represents Christian anarchy; disillusion in government that opposes religion to the extent necessary to invoke lasting change. Biblically we are called to obey governments that fall under the authority of God, (Isa 9:6,7; Rom 13:1); yet the contemporary U.S. government continues to pervert the consensus for what constitutes necessary foreign aid, and essential war. God commands that we be stewards of our finances; while decreeing every believer to live radically in their faith. The problem contemporary political theorists face today is that the term radicalism has been hijacked by collectivists and secular institutions to mean radical progressivism and socialism. Collectivization implies a top-down approach to mandate the actions of the constituents, thereby corralling individuals to adhere to the sanctions imposed to uphold a totalitarian utopia. Whilst autocracy is malevolent; it is not shocking, nor radical—but historically expected and predictable. The Apostle Paul scribed the Lord’s proposal thereby reflecting a very different position unto radicalism; “[f]or they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord,” (2 Corinthians 8:3; ESV). Paul’s parable does not exclusively mean what is explicitly enumerated—instead, it invokes the valor of the individual to devote themselves beyond their capability, by faith; in His image.

Radicalism (Individualism)

Radicalism, namely radical individualism—an inverted concept to the institutional Marxian quasi-radicalist theory—best reflects the Biblical notion of human nature and the role of government. The best approach to foreign policy is a laissez-faire approach. Through radical faith, individuals can discern what is best for their community, bolstering the nation from the bottom-up. Thus, Supernatural radicalism equates to individual radicalism; henceforth declared as radicalism through the duration of this context, whereby the denotation of institutional radicalism defines the postmodernist top-down view of Marxist theory. Instead, we must stand Marx on his head; inverting Marxian theory—instead proposing a radical bottom-up approach that places personal covenant before the collective. Radical policy includes limited government, and non-interventionism. The only way to drain a swamp is through radicality; total commitment to faith and personal self-regulation to void the excessive need for policy. Despite their institutional affiliations; Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Plutocracy, Bureaucracy, Technocracy, Iatrarchy, Totalitarianism, and Globalism; are all non-radical and non-epical—renouncing individual sovereignty and personal power to a collective government is the most unradical thing an individual can do. Yet the majority of radical political theories feature an individual call to action that encourages the individual to take their sovereignty back from the system, thus this principle is conducive to Christianity; whilst the Bible decrees obedience to authority, it also places God first in all circumstances. Anything impeding our relationship with God, must be destroyed; for the intervention to personal faith is the diffusion of worship, thereby impacting a personal covenant with God—in favor of idols. Radicalism includes smashing these worldly idols, mandating that we lead by example, and do not force faith unto any gentile.

Constructivism/Globalism

Constructivism, also known as globalism; presupposes that “human knowledge and understanding are constructed through social institutions and practices;” Loc. 7915). Alexander Wendt geopolitical theory relies on idealism and holism, whereby he attempts to justify that a world state is better than a pluralistic world of 195 nations, (Youtube). Constructionists criticize realists for lack of relationship between nations. Wendt attempts to shift the default position from anarchy to the construction of a world state; declaring international anarchy is despotism; declaring that a world state would be far less destructive to civil liberties. Wendt considers himself to be a communitarian, stating that there has to be the ability to enforce the writ of the world state, naming the United Nations army. Alexander Wendt states that a world state would turn war into crime. Wendt claims that Morgenthau believed in a world state. Wendt states idealist theory is natural as most political theories are idealistic. Constructionists believe if we could reform the world from scratch, starting from Rawlsian theory—human beings would elect to construct a single-nation global state. Wendt asserts that pluralism is dead; yet fails disclose the hegemony of the prototype utilized as the basis of his theory, (what race and culture will Wendt choose?) moreover blatantly discounting other cultures, religions, and inevitable opposition as collateral damage; and voiding any consideration of planetary geography, or access to natural resources.

Correlation to Christian Doctrine

Paul expounds scribing; “say this not as a command, but to prove by the earnestness of others that your love also is genuine. 9 For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich. And in this matter I give my judgment: this benefits you, who a year ago started not only to do this work but also to desire to do it. So now finish doing it as well, so that your readiness in desiring it may be matched by your completing it out of what you have. For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have. For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, 'Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack,'” (2 Corinthians 8:8-15; ESV). The term radical parties is defined by Oxford Dictionary of Politics as parties “in favor of extending the franchise, popular participation in politics, civil liberties, and greater social welfare at a time when none of these were an established norm.” Although parties with anti-human agendas have adopted the prospect of radicalism; the Christian must consider the ontology of his existence before engaging in an epistemic consideration. Despite the normalized definition of radicalism, breaking windows and starting fires is not radical—if anything the invocation of violence is mundane, predictable, and expected. Radicalism confers with the Supernatural; invoking the Light of the Lord unto the nation; bringing thenceforth the Spirit of God from its foundation to dwell in modern polity and reshape the culture.

Giving individual power to the government produces a civil expectation based on reason; conversely, individual faith is not based on reason—it is based on personal belief. This inherent belief bears hegemony over all other intuitions of consideration, thereby proving radical in the actions of the Christian. Exercising total faith in God requires one to act radically. Calling out bad foreign policy, and deposing the federal government of its scheme of pseudo tax dependency is radical. Abolishing the Federal Reserve, and giving a clear no to foreign aid is immensely radical. Americans must propose even more radical policy in order to sustain our Republic for posterity. Limiting the jurisdiction the federal bureaucracy can impose is radical; as is eliminating the expectations of submitting to governance. Publicly omitting the expected subservience to government-issued poor ideas proposed as mandated policy, is radical. Americans must think radically to regain authority over the actions of our government.

This action would include a total overhaul of the government; imposing term limits; reducing foreign aid; bringing home servicemen and servicewomen from the unnecessary global military presence; imposing sanctions; and bolstering our national defense on the homeland. Instead of scattering our military around the world to impose international relations; America’s borders would be better suited to build training camps and military bases. This would help deter illegal immigration, and fortify our national defense from military intruders. Kevin Dooley writes that “[t]he Protestant Reformation questioned papal authority and the dawn of the Enlightenment created a sense of individualism that witnessed a new form of statecraft, the raison d’état (Best understood by the modern expression “the national interest” where modern leaders put forth what is best for their own state above all other reasons.)  and the subsequent emergence of a new understanding of international stability, the balance of power,” (Dooley, K., Ch-10-3) Rather than attempting to convert the complex traditions and coerce international relationships between nations to favor America’s position of justice; our nation must be willing to rely on our domestic power to uphold the value in our international system of relations.

Biblical Doctrine

Pastor Bill Johnson of Bethel Church in Redding, CA reminds us, “only nations can disciple other nations” “We teach we model we empower…authority is for the purpose of discipling nations… power is for transforming nations…nations that are like Jesus…all of these areas [of society] are supposed to come under the influence of people who function in authority, not for personal gain; but for the benefit of the whole, using divine wisdom to build something,” (YouTube). When “Jesus came and told his disciples, ‘I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you. And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age,’ (Matthew 28:18-20; NLT); He did not instruct us to build a Babylonian world government void of Supernatural insight, yet the encroaching Establishment strives to depose the Lord of His sovereignty.

Conclusion

The theory of international relations remains an essential component of achieving geopolis; a multi-polar non-interventionist world of nations that rely on cooperation and diplomacy to achieve consensus. The concept of attaining world peace is volatile, temporal, and futile; as it requires all parties to conform to the compromise set forth in the mind of the political theorist. Constructivism relies on eugenics and is incompatible with geopolitical theory. Anarchic authority offers the stewardship of international relations to God, bringing order through His jurisdiction. Neorealism remains the best approach to international relations, yet can only be achieved through radical policy, to prevent the rise of global government. 

---

Bibliography

Brown, Garrett W; McLean, Iain; McMillan, Alistair. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations (Oxford Quick Reference) . OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.

Georges Sorel. Reflections on Violence. Red and Black Publishers. Kindle Edition.

Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (pp. 53-54). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.

JSTOR. (Accessed on February 28^th, 2024). Value and Affect on JSTOR. https://www.jstor.org/stable/303792?searchText=negri&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dnegri&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3A9f6ef3eed1ff87c67ddadfc5c3221da0.

Waltz, K. N. (2001). Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis (REV-Revised, 2). Columbia University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/walt12537

YouTube. (Accessed on February 29^th, 2024). Alexander Wendt on Sovereignty and the World State - YouTube.

YouTube. (Accessed on February 28^th, 2024). Discover the Purpose of Power and Authority - Bill Johnson Sermon | Bethel Church - YouTube.