Political Theory
The term political theory can be defined as a literary depiction of change in polity; this occurs by implementing prediction, comparison, analysis, and antipolitics, (Ryan, A., p. 31). The Greek philosopher Plato (427BC-347BC) implemented classical political theory to designate a point of reference; utilizing antipolitical thought to accentuate Greek’s polis; (Ryan, A., p. 125). Aristotle (384BC-322BC) revised Plato’s political theory, reshaping political theory as a science, deemed the Aristotelian polis, (Ryan, A., p. 78). Political analyst Jack C. Plano (1921-2002) defines the term as “[a] body of thought that seeks to evaluate, explain, and predict political phenomena,” (Plano, J., 109). Subdividing the term political theory into two categories, Plano expounds that “Political theory in this broad sense has two major branches. One is political philosophy or normative theory, with its value, analytic, historical, and speculative concerns. The other is empirical theory…efforts to explain, predict, guide research, and organize knowledge through the formation of abstract models and scientifically testable propositions,” (Plano, J., p. 109). Ian McLean’s 1996 Oxford Dictionary of Politics defines political theory as “[c]ritical, systemic reflection about power in its public and private forms, particularly about the claims of government to possess legitimacy and authority,” (McLean, I., p. 388). The purpose of political theory is to provide insight for future policymakers and legislators; it is through the eyes of history, that we can envision a greater tomorrow.
Radical political theory is correlative of the silica gel found in many consumer products, that discloses the disclaimer “do not eat;” radical theories preserve the body politic from its own degradation, yet as historically evidenced, should not be consumed, (Ryan, A., p. 940). Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), Fredrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), Karl Marx (1818-1883), Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), Georges Eugène Sorel (1847-1922), John Atkinson Hobson (1858-1940), et al. all produced radical political theories that were reinterpreted, distorted, and actualized by dictators, (Ryan, A., p.573). Contemporary political theorists must view these theories as diseases to be studied; philosopher John Dewey (1859-1952) defines that “[t]heory is practice in idea, or as foreseen; it is the perception of what ought to be done,” (Dewey, J. p. 3705). Diseased political theory and modern secular political theory have developed concerning novel viral variant strains, evolving in resistance as they progress; Alan Ryan suggests we must “inspect whatever political regimes we can, and determine what makes for success and failure; we can distinguish corrupt governments from good governments,” (Ryan, A., p. 81). Ryan adds that acknowledgment of the prosperity and general welfare of each regime’s polity will allow us to “ascertain which regimes promote good political character and which the reverse; we can discover why different peoples adopt different kinds of regimes, and why what we call ‘politics’ flourishes in some but not all societies,” (Ryan, A., p. 81). There are many factors to achieving a healthy polity; utilizing political theory allows policymakers to assure civic security and generational longevity, (Ryan, A., p. 818).
Political theory varied from Plato to Aristotle, yet similarities of Plato’s original theory remain evident in the contemporary age; these include Marxism’s doctrine of Plato’s antipolitics, and Aristotle’s belief in structured Aristocracy existed somewhere between democracy and tyranny; exalting the rule of the middle class, (Ryan, A., p. 884). Aristotle saw political theory as a science; striving not to produce an illusory utopia, but an achievable state of consensus, (Ryan, A., pp. 77, 78). Contrary to Plato’s political theory, Augustine’s (354AD-430AD) political theory indicates that “states exist because we care for earthly things and require earthly arrangements to satisfy that;” whereas Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s (1712-1778) political theory asserted that “states exist because there are conflicting interests and common interests,” (Ryan, A., pp. 174, 884). Ryan adds that “[u]nlike Marx, Aristotle did not think that the many are driven to revolt by sheer need,” (Ryan, A., p. 101).
Classical Political Theory
Classical political theory was created at the pinnacle of prosperity in Ancient Greece; representative of a snapshot of unanimous polis, representative of the ideal state of Greek society (Ryan, A., pp. 5, 67). Plato remained suspect of government; rather than enlisting himself to become part of the problem, he set forth to establish acknowledgment and discernment between politics and the administrative state, declaring an impending doom beyond his captured snapshot of society, used as a point of reference (Waterfield, R. Loc. 125). Plato’s political theory ensured that the actions of the citizens would consider the present rather than looking back in time with regret; his politics were influenced by the Peloponnesian War, which occurred throughout his early upbringing (Waterfield, R. Loc. 125). Historian Alan Ryan, [i]n the writings of the theorists of the social contract, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau among them, the state is essentially the unifying element in a society; it is artificial, is legal, sustains the top-down authority that is implicit in the notion of legislation,” (Ryan, A., p. 407). The term social contract is defined by Iain McLean’s Oxford Dictionary of Politics as “ [a] contract between persons in a pre-political or pre-social condition specifying the terms upon which they are prepared to enter society or submit to political authority, (McLean, I., p. 455).
Aristotle believed that, “man is by nature a political animal,” and things to be defined by their working and power, writing that; “the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part…if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense,” (Ryan, A., pp. 111, 112). Aristotle’s allegiance to the state placed government first, before family, friends, or self-interest; this mindset led to the inception of Christendom, or the worship of the state; without distinction between divine and artificial law, (Aristotle, p. 52). Aristotle proposed Aristocracy to be “the best form of government: there the best men rule because they possess judgment, courage, justice, and moderation in the highest degree,” (Ryan, A., p. 97). In accordance with Aristotelian theory, over one century later, Christendom led to apostasy within the Roman Catholic Church, resulting in the deposing of the pope as the head of the church, revealing that the body of believers is representative of the Church, (Ryan, A., p. 405). Aristotle’s politics strived to establish the polis as “self-sufficient and sustain[ing] a complete life for its members,” (Ryan, A. p. 83). “Despotism was inconsistent with politics as the Greeks understood it,” writes Alan Ryan, adding that [t]he institutionalization of the thought that “some are free” is the Greek polis, (Ryan, A., p. 666).
Aristotle set forth precedence for the contention among political theorists, denouncing Plato for his obsession with disunity, (Ryan, A., p.106). Aristotle strived to achieve “unity out of a plurality,” adding that “[t]he individual is intended by nature to live and thrive in a polis, so the polis is ‘prior’ to the individual,” (Ryan, A., p. 46). Aristotle questioned the nature of Plato’s political theory, including his inspiration; on Socrates, he wrote that “the argument of Socrates proceeds, ‘that the greater the unity of the state the better.’ Is it not obvious that a state may at length attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a state?” (Ryan, A., p. 137). Despite Aristotle’s political theory being the renowned standard post-Plato, it remained incomplete; correlative to Marx’s prominence by his followers to be “a tremendous nonfinisher of the work he had projected,” leading to a wide variety of transmutations, (Ryan, A., p. 799). Karl Marx’s diseased political theory was self-proclaimed to be “the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property,” (Marx, K., p. 18).
On property, Aristotle dissented from Socrates’s position that “a man should have so much property as will enable him to live temperately,” clarifying that “a man may live temperately and yet miserably,” (Aristotle, p. 1251). Aristotle offered an alternative, instead contesting that “a man must have so much property as will enable him to live not only temperately but liberally; if the two are parted, liberally will combine with luxury; temperance will be associated with toil,” (Aristotle, p. 1251). Moreover, Aristotle denoted that it was Socrates who failed to “tell us how the rulers differ from their subjects…[t]he whole system of government tends to be neither democracy nor oligarchy, but something in a mean between them, which is usually called a polity,” (Aristotle, p. 1252) Aristotle’s criticism of his own teachers were directly correlative to Martin Luther’s (1483-1546) dissent against the papacy nearly two centuries later (Ryan, A., p. 405). Historian Alan Ryan writes that “Aristotle complains that Plato treated all knowledge as if it served the same goals, but in ethics and politics we seek the truth for the sake of knowing what to do, Ryan, A., pp. 77-78).
Christian Political Theory
Christian Political Theory utilized theocracy as its absolute point of reference; though its Biblical interpretation and allegiance contrasted, leading to the Reformation. Plato’s politic theory had metastasized to Christian political theory; thereby facilitating the inception of a theocracy, eventually invoking tyrannical disorder. The Christian body politic commanded a state of authority; Augustine’s City of God predated the mediæval body politic, Ryan writing that “[t]he provocation for writing The City of God was the sack of Rome in 410,” (Ryan, A., p. 164). Plato’s prediction proved to be accurate; from Augustine to Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), the mediæval politic theory transitioned into the reformed politic theory, leading to a bisection of perceived law; temporal and divine (Martin, G.R., pp. 214-215).
Mediæval political theory aligned the government with the authority of God; yet its interpretation led to the unrestrained usurpation of civic power, aside from a wildly distorted view of Christianity, (Ryan, A., p. 848). Augustine observed this, writing of Origen, “But the Church, not without reason, condemned him for this and other errors, especially for his theory of the ceaseless alternation of happiness and misery, and the interminable transitions from the one state to the other at fixed periods of ages; for in this theory he lost even the credit of being merciful,” (Augustine, p. 3730).
Martin Luther’s open dissent against the Roman Catholic Church kicked the door in in for the Reformation, giving rise to the reformed body politic. Historian Alan Ryan writes that, “[i]n 1513 Machiavelli began work on The Prince, in 1516 Thomas More published Utopia, and in 1517 Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five theses to the door of the cathedral of Wittenberg,” (Ryan, A., p. 13). The diversity of political theories to a variance in interpretation; Thomas More facilitated communist political theory; while Machiavellian theory paved the way for future dictatorships, (Ryan, A., p. 14). Political scientist and translator Carnes Lord writes that as the authority of Aristotle’s political theory began to decline; “the broad movement of thought inspired by Machiavelli [developed] such figures as Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu, which would revolutionize men’s understanding of politics and profoundly shape the character of modern societies,” (Lord, C., p. 39).
Anna Vind, a professor at the University of Copenhagen contends that Martin Luther’s political theory was characterized by both “persistence and flexibility;” adding that, “[i]f he had not been persistent, the polemical situations would have been less conspicuous; had he been immovable, the ongoing discussions with ever new opponents would not have made him reformulate his position as he did,” (Klob, R., et al., p. 473). Augustine’s political theory was a declaration to God; in his writing of Confessions, he scribed that “Your laws have the power to temper bitter experiences in a constructive way,” (Augustine, p. 17). On property, Augustine asserted that “if you have not been faithful with someone else’s property, who will give you your own?’ citing Luke 16:11–12 to support this assertion, (Chadwick, H., p. 103).
Modern Secular Theory
Aristotle’s trend of deposing his influences has continued to the contemporary age; Dr. Martin concludes that, none of the diseased bodies politic thinkers agreed with each other; writing that “[f]or a Darwin it was the biological component. For a Marx it was the economic component, for a Dewey the volitional component, for a Freud the presupposed psychic component, for a Crick the chemical component, for a McLuhan the media component, and on and on we could go,” (Martin, G.R., p. 219). Thomas Hobbes’s theory of authority was the prognosis to the onset of disease within the corpus polis; Hobbes declared his generation to be “that of the great LEVIATHAN, writing that “the multitude so united in one person, is called a COMMONWEALTH, in Latin CIVITAS,” (Hobbes, T, p. 14). Modern technocratic political theorists’ agenda to achieve immortality, transcend man with machine, and exclusively usurp global power, correlate with Thomas Hobbes’s political theory, (Hobbes, T., p. 114). Hobbes denoted of an authority with omnipotent power as a “Mortal God, to which we owe under the Immortal God, our peace and defence,” (Hobbes, T., p. 114). Despite each revolutionary political theory and their origin of inspiration, there remained no consensus between theories beyond conflict and disagreement; Alan Ryan states that “Thomas Hobbes loathed Aristotle’s politics…but he admired Aristotle’s biology,” (Ryan, A., p. 44). Aristotle remained a consistent inspiration throughout early modern political theorists, yet his principles sought revision by early modern political theorists; Ryan writes, “Rousseau proposed elective aristocracy as the best of all forms of government, but denounced the idea of representation on which the modern version of elective aristocracy rests,” (Ryan, A., p. 97).
Early modern political theory began the revival of the popularization of authoritarian thought, paving the way for modern secular technocratic political theory, furthering the decay of collective morale, (Ryan, A., p. 985). Hobbesian influence led to the diseased political theories developed by Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Hobson, Sorel, et al.; the main consequence of diseased polity was its actualized expression of the diseased thinkers, resulting in democidal dictatorships, (Ryan, A., p. 868). Dr. Glenn R. Martin states its pathogenesis was due to a political theory called process philosophy that had begun its development through Heraclitus’ (540BC-480BC) political theory, dating back to 560BCE, that stated “one could never step into the same river twice,” (Martin, G.R., p. 215).
With the diseased political theory, the body politic incurred immunodeficiencies evident by the offshoot of both fascist and communist ideologies; contemporary political theories display empirical evidence that the genealogical pathogenesis of these chronic diseases originated with the historic transition into Christendom, (Ryan, A., p. 216). Mediæval political theory featured the acceptance of tyrannic totalitarianism, basing its disorder, the observed decay in polis, as a foundational reference for governance (Ryan, A., p. 31). Diseased political theories represented the heritable genetic alternation in the nucleotide sequence of polity leading to a terminal mutation, merging utility with utilitarianism, collectively supporting the transition to technocracy, (Ryan. A., p. 95).
American Philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002) writes that “Hobbes connected the question of stability with that of political obligation. One may think of the Hobbesian sovereign as a mechanism added to a system of cooperation which would be unstable without it,” (Rawls, J., p. 435). American economist Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929), a proponent of early modern technocratic political theory, and the diseased technocratic body politic initiated the idea that “[t]he possession of wealth confers honour; it is an invidious distinction,” (Veblen, T., p. 37). Contemporary technocratic political theory seeks to replace God’s Holy Spirit with an agenda-based, artificially curated narrative. Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF) assures that “[a]dvances in neurotechnology, nanotechnology and AI could enable VR to be controlled from inside our brains,” (Schwab, K., p. 179). The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Yuval Noah Harari believes that, “science is replacing evolution by natural selection, with evolution by intelligent design; not the intelligent design of some God above the clouds, but our intelligent design, and the intelligent design of our clouds – the IBM clouds, the Microsoft cloud – these are the new driving forces of evolution,” (Harari, Y.N., 14:36-15:01). Harari goes on to boast that “control of data might enable human elite to do something even more radical than just build digital dictatorships; by hacking organisms, elites may gain the power to re-engineer the future of life itself,” calling it the greatest revolution in humanity “since the beginning of life four billion years ago,” (Harari, Y.N., 13:23 – 14:07).
God warns us against technocratic political theorists like Harari; and reminds us to always question the validity of guided misdirection through referencing Scripture. He writes in 1 John 2:22-23 (ESV); “[w]ho is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father,” (John 2:22-23). Klaus Schwab’s 2018 book, Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution; section 2.3, chapter 11, labeled Altering the Human Being, assures that biotechnologies will enable to “correct deficiencies or add enhancements,” (Schwab, K., p.168). Schwab believes that future generations will choose convenience over security, writing that “[b]y affecting how we govern ourselves, the system management of human existence, brain science encourages a huger step for humans beyond natural evolution,” (Schwab, K., p. 169). The National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) (BRAIN) initiative is “a partnership between Federal and non-Federal partners with a common goal of accelerating the development of innovative neurotechnologies,” (BrainInitiative).
Jesus warns us in Matthew 12:31-32 (NASB) “[t]herefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come,” (Matthew 12:31-32).
Klaus Schwab’s contemporary technocratic political theory appears in his 2020 book, COVID-19: The Great Reset, whereby §1.3.3. predicts “[t]he return of ‘big’ government;” in this, he writes, “ [o]ne of the great lessons from the past five centuries in Europe and America is this: acute crises contribute to boosting the power of the state. It’s always been the case and there is no reason why it should be different with the COVID-19 pandemic.,” (Schwab, K., p.89). Deliberately referencing to revolution, in Schwab’s book The Fourth Industrial Revolution, he predicts Hitlerian “designer beings,” citing “ethical dilemmas regarding the nature of humanity” and “cultural shifts” as a result (Schwab, K., pp. 168, 169). DARPA is currently at work to “develop and test a wireless, fully implantable neural interface for human clinical use…to facilitate memory formation and recall,” (DARPA). Technocratic political theory implements those with disabilities to sway citizens to support the furthering of experimental medical technology, as DARPA cites the mitigation of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in military service members. Once this technology is developed, it will permanently alter society forever. Heraclitus’ theory remains true, once humanity steps into the river of technocracy, we cannot go back, (Martin, G.R., p. 215). Post-contemporary political theorists will face unspeakable horrors including neurotechnology-based curation and manipulation of the corpus, (Schwab, K., p. 170).
The Body Politic
The corpus polis, or the body politic, is representative of Plato’s original theory; this acknowledged not only the ideal balance of Greek society and its governance, (Ryan, A., p. 5). The body politic utilized change in polity from its delicate summit of normalcy; a descent in either direction from this apogee was expressed as decay, a disease that declined into disparity, radicalizing the separation between the poor and the elite (Ryan, A., p. 17). In contemporary times, the body politic contains a conglomeration of diseases, whose pathogenesis can be traced back to each era of political theory (Ryan, A., pp. 33, 99). Despite the transition in political theory that has drifted far beyond the original state of polis, there have been benefits in each era that principles the normalcy and diversity that exists in polity today, (Ryan, A., p. 1010).
The benefits of each era can be found existent within the contemporary body polity, including its detriments. The benefit of Plato’s political theory was his conceptual acknowledgment of the health and general welfare of the population; its diagnosis included diseases of slavery, classism, and androcentrism. Aristotle provided necessary criticism, writing that “the best constitution is made up of democracy and tyranny, which are either not constitutions at all, or are the worst of all. But they are nearer the truth,” (Aristotle, p. 1253). The benefit of Augustine’s political theory was his objectivity in referencing politics with that of scripture, ensuring the existence of moral value and divine principles within legislation; the diagnosis was the metastasizing of authoritarian tyranny, persisting for nearly a century. Dr. Glenn R. Martin writes on Christian political theory’s origin, that “in the West, it was Augustine who first introduced a Biblical Christian philosophy of history in The City of God,” (Martin, G.,R., p. 239). The benefit of Luther’s political theory was his dissent against tyranny; its diagnosis included diseases of double-predestination, segregation, classism, and secular persecution, (Moots, G., p. 40). Ironically, it was Luther’s revelation that would enable secular legislation’s existence within the polity, as 1517 marked a split in temporal and divine law, leading to political revolution evident in contemporary polity, (Martin, G.R., p. 214-215). The benefit of Hegel’s political theory was its discernment to track change over time based on conflict; its diagnosis of disease was the resulting Hegelian Dialecticism, relying on conflict to produce change, influencing the secular technocratic bodies politic, (Martin, G.R., p. 237). In the Christian Standard Bible’s Worldview Study Bible Notes, John Stonestreet writes that “[o]f all the things God made, only humans bear his image. Many atheist thinkers, like Friedrich Nietzsche, recognized that only the biblical vision of imago Dei (the image of God) grounds universal human dignity, value, and rights,” (CSB, pp. 74-75).
God decrees that we are to praise Him in all that we do; as Christians, this is the primary commandment we must obey, (Matthew 22:37-38). The second most important commandment is that we should love others as we love ourselves; for we are all made in the image of God, (Matthew 22:39-40). Jesus uses a parable in Mark to denote this, tying back to the first chapter of Genesis, whereby the Lord states; in Genesis 1:27 (NASB) it is written that “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them,” (Gen 1:27). In Mark 12:29-31 (TPT) “Jesus answered him, ‘The most important of all the commandments is this: ‘The Lord Yahweh, our God, is one!’ You are to love the Lord Yahweh, your God, with a passionate heart, from the depths of your soul, with your every thought, and with all your strength. This is the great and supreme commandment. And the second is this: ‘You must love your neighbor in the same way you love yourself.’ You will never find a greater commandment than these,” (Mark 12:29-31). Pastor Bill Johnson, the founder of Bethel Church, reminds us that, “[y]ou can’t really have the kind of unity that God talks about without diversity. Unity was never meant to be uniformity, it’s supposed to be uniqueness, that we celebrate,” (Johnson, B., 22:42-22:52).
Conclusion
Politics is all about perspective, political theory helps sort out the deficits before implementing policy; as written by Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) against Marxist thought, “[c]apital goods are the intermediate factors between the given natural factors of production and consumer goods,” (von Mises, L., p. 65). In the contemporary body politic, we must acknowledge our immunodeficiencies, while ensuring to routinely supplement these vulnerabilities through the assimilation of information. The Light of the Lord will guide us to maintain a healthy state of polity for posterity, for in Him there is no darkness at all, (1Jo 1:5). Aristotle prophesied that the best form of government was a combination of tyranny and democracy; generational oppression has proven to be a prerequisite for eternal liberation. Political theory exposes the need for polity; we need not seek utopia, nor to avoid disparity; instead, America must focus on legislating policy that is nearest to truth, (Aristotle, p. 1253). No matter the position, political theory remains a synthetic temporal construct, God’s provision is built on an eternal covenant; as Alan Ryan concludes, “[w]e may safely assume there will be no politics in the heavenly kingdom,” (Ryan, A., p. 31). Joseph Schumpeter supported this theory, writing that “[n]o serious argument ever supports any ‘ism’ unconditionally,” (Schumpeter, J.A., p. 102). We can only invest the values and morals obtained through the residual foundations of our personal relationship and continuous journey with God.
–October 13th, 2023
Bibliography
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. (2019). The Complete Works of St. Augustine: Cross-linked to the Bible and with in-line footnotes. Kindle Edition.
Aristotle. (1984, 2013). Aristotle's Politics: Second Edition. The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
BrainInitiative. (Accessed on October 11th, 2023). BRAIN Initiative. https://braininitiative.nih.gov/
Chadwick, H., Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. (1991, 1992, 1998). The Confessions. (Oxford World's Classics). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
CSB. (2017). CSB Worldview Study Bible. CSB Bibles by Holman. B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
DARPA. (Accessed on October 12th, 2023). Restoring Active Memory (RAM). https://www.darpa.mil/program/restoring-active-memory
Dewey, John. (2019). The Collected Works of John Dewey. Madison & Adams Press. Kindle Edition.
Hobbes, Thomas; J. C. A. Gaskin. (1996). Leviathan (Oxford World's Classics). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
Johnson, B. (2023). The Legacy Roundtables, Ep. 1 - Multigenerational Revival and Leading Well Together. Bethel Church. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAyha0kgJxI
Martin, G.R. (1976, 2006). Prevailing Worldviews of Western Society Since 1500 https://books.apple.com/us/book/prevailing-worldviews-of-western-society-since-1500/id1451331222
Marx, Karl; Friedrich Engels; David McLellan. (1992, 1998, 2008). The Communist Manifesto. (Oxford World's Classics). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
McLean, I. (1996). Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Oxford University Press: New York, NY
Moots, Glenn A. (2010). Politics Reformed. (The Eric Voegelin Institute Series in Political Philosophy). University of Missouri Press. Kindle Edition.
Rawls, J. (1971, 1999). A Theory of Justice. (Belknap). Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.
Robert K. (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther's Theology. (Oxford Handbooks). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
Ryan, A. (2012, 2014). On Aristotle: Saving Politics from Philosophy. (Liveright Classics). Liveright. Kindle Edition.
Ryan, A. (2012, 2014). On Machiavelli: The Search for Glory. (Liveright Classics). Liveright. Kindle Edition.
Ryan, A. (2012). On Politics: A History of Political Thought: From Herodotus to the Present. Liveright. Kindle Edition.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1942, 2014). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Wilder Publications, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Schwab, K. et al. (2020). COVID-19: The Great Reset. Forum Publishing: Geneva, Switzerland.
Schwab, K. (2011). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Forum Publishing: Geneva, Switzerland.
Schwab, K. (2018). Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Forum Publishing: Geneva, Switzerland.
Veblen, T. (2016). The Complete Works of Thorstein Veblen: Economics Books, Business Essays & Political Articles. e-artnow. Kindle Edition.
von Mises, Ludwig. (2006). Marxism Unmasked (LvMI). Ludwig von Mises Institute. Kindle Edition.
WorldEconomicForum. (Accessed on October 11th, 2023). Will the Future Be Human? Yuval Noah Harari. YouTube.