Matter of the state

The matter of the state (trakmik:), officially titled The matter of the state: modern society and the function of government in the 20th century, is a 1925 treatise by Drakat Mown that discusses the necessity of conflict, whether peaceful or violent, to continue societal progress and growth for both opposing nations. The treatise also writes on the need of a central authoritative figure who will listen to the needs of the people so that they can act rapidly against the situation. Despite heavy controversy, the book is regarded as a hallmark of 20th century political thought in Gemurtrak and one of the founding pillars of the Neo-Monarchist movement.

Historical context
Drakat Mown grew up during an aggressive period within Gemurtrak society. exposed to a failing economy and panicked central government from an early age, Drakat wanted to understand the failings of the state and their origins. Many previous political theorists threw the blame towards the monarchy and its inability to function within the modern mindset, that it innately causes conflict and stuggles for power. Drakat wanted to argue against this, believing these people to having clouded deduction from a nascent disdain for the monarchy. Drakat instead grew with the early stages of the parliamentary system, still a young teen at 1888 and the transition of power. Here he developed a distaste for the parliamentary system, claiming it to be "a beautiful distraction from the true chaos", already claiming it a failed system in his graduation thesis Successes and Failures of the Gemurtrak political system: an in-depth investigation in bloated power-structures in 1900. Drakat remained staunchly against the current status quo and published previous treatises detailing the need to remove the elected government and return to systems of old. He would be arrested twice for speaking against the Party of national solidarity in 1913 and 1920. Both of these times he began to develop his theory of the need of conflict in society, drawing back to the golden ages of Gemurtrak typically aligning to periods of conflict in the international scene. After being released in 1922, following the dismantling of the NSP in the reforms, Drakat immediately began writing on the necessity of a monarch or other central authoritative figure to take control and used his writings while in prison to further support his theory.

Contents and philosophy
The Treatise first discusses the matter of the state, and Drakats interpretation of how society functions on the grandest scale. He outlines the need in nature for conflict to occur to encourage growth and change, to better oneself and their compatriots to further excel and later overcome all environmental odds, becoming an apex of its natural environment. If the creature fails to adapt they are consumed by a greater entity or if they do not possess rivals and threats they may become complacent and be destroyed should their stable environment be tarnished by an outside force. Drakat places this theory into the function of modern society, demanding a need to continually engage in conflict to grow the societal capability to adapt to its environment and thus make it stronger against all threats. He illustrates this through the history of numerous countries in each of the categories he presents:
 * Adaptor
 * Prey
 * Apex

Prey are considered the low rung of national sustainability, a country that possess no enemies and who pride themselves on "...an imaginative higher moral fiber". these countries come too satisfied with the state of their nation and eventually buckle under internal pressure. Drakat argues that "a society will always need an enemy, a scapegoat, to blame the failings of a nation or the reason for its downtrodden members" and the removal of an external threat only encourages the creation of arbitrary internal conflict as a self designed coping mechanism to satisfy the populace of the nation. Countries that have subjected themselves to another power, by form of direct vassalization or through external measure such as heavy foreign cultural influence is also seen as being a prey-like nation, letting foreign ideas change the mindset of people, destabilizing the status quo even if the nation possesses a considerable external threat. A prey nation is described as having their days numbered until the collapse of the central state and the end of that society to be consumed by the two other categories.

Adaptors are nations that possess an external threat but have yet to make it part of the societal fiber. The people of the society are still generally impulsive and may spark disagreement amongst each other over the approach against an external threat, which can risk the state collapsing to internal pressures. The psyche of the society is still malleable and the vision presented to the people can change to suit the need of the state whether it's to make the people angry at the enemy for a threat (real or speculative), or have them interpreted as inferior or pitiful compared to themselves. Drakat argues that almost all nations are perpetually in this state as the tides of international conflict change the enemy of global society on the whim depending on the need of the states in question. However, a true Adaptor state will have their own local rival who builds the bedrock of the societal rivalry, the lack thereof, as Drakat states, "will simply make you a unique prey of not a single nation, but the united global society who will exploit you for their own gains".

Apex nations are regarded as the societal peaks, nations with deep societal ties to a rivalry that continues to this day. The fabric of the state, even subconsciously at this point, structures itself to oppose the primary enemy in all forms including media, traditions, and behavior/treatment towards members of the rival state. The approach against the rival is solid and the interpretation of how the rival should be approached is largely accepted by the society, excluding the typical outliers in all societies. The constant rivalry between the two creates a perpetual state of growth for both nations, who will continue to adapt in the hope of overcoming their opponent which is typically recommended against. Drakat notes that the destruction of a member of an apex pair will progressively lead to the other part of the pair to eventually enter a societal collapse as the nation loses the national bedrock and attempts to construct a new conflict rapidly which generates numerous opposing entities who will eventually destroy the state from the inside.

Drakat continues by describing the growth of Apex nations in the international scene indicative of the growing interconnections of global society which exposes the national populace with various cultures and political thought. A nation incapable of shifting these cultural and political differences into a rival mindset will eventually suffer an internal collapse as the invasion of foreign ideas will radicalize the populace and blind them from the enemies from beyond. Drakat provides the example of his own home, Gemurtrak, as an example of a failed state who did not succeed in shifting all external influence as dangerous foreign propaganda. The removal of foreign occupation in Gemurtrak still left social influences that were passed on through the populace. Ideas such as democracy, self determinism, and liberty stayed within the national mental psyche while the nation rebuilt. Following the death of the leader at the time, Mazkwat, the nation buckled under the stress lacking a strong central authority. To stop the nation from falling into complete social conflict, Gemurtrak converted to a constitutional monarchy, weakening itself from the internal conflicts at the time. Drakat argues this transition to a constitutional monarchy was simply delaying the inevitable and that the nation would collapse one day unless a strong central authority is introduced to refocus the national struggle towards an external force.

From here Drakat begins his discussion on the necessity of a central authority as the best course of national action. He states that a "democratically elected government is a dangerous and fickle thing, swarmed with varying opinions which only radicalize the national populace in hating their neighbor as the source of their blight for their belief of another form of political understanding". As he stated, Drakat believed in the need of a power that ,while not directly influenced by the people they command, would seek the betterment and stability of the state above all else which would in some form would require change, of which would come from the development of society to oppose an external conflict. While Drakat was never explicit on the authoritative figure he mentions is needed, many have interpreted it as being a Monarch or a group of individuals who closely serve under the monarch (such as that of the Monarchist Interest Party). He continues describing the inclusion of everyday members of society into positions of political power lack the control and resistance like those of an individual engrossed in political intrigue at an early age (such as nobility or members of military families) are more likely to succumb to corruption and lack the political backbone to maintain their position on a situation, jumping between options depending on what will maintain them a position in government longer. An authoritative individual, as Drakat explains "lack the social pressure of entertaining the foolish goals of the uneducated masses merely for continuing their political career, their life is their career, and they will do what they see fit for the masses, even if the masses do not believe it is correct for them".

Drakat finally concludes declaring the need for radical change in society to fix it upon a structure where nations oppose one another, not cooperate for the greater good of mankind as that cooperation, he argues, is what leads to internal national collapse and leaves all of the international community reeling. He warns that the coming century will be a dangerous one, where too many nations are still malleable in their ideas and a international bedrock of an opposing force has yet to be made and that one will be made within this century through the failure of the cooperative state

Controversy & Criticism
Within weeks of release, Matter of the state received heavy backlash from numerous political sections arguing the absurdity of the theories provided. Many did not subscribe to Drakats theory of the necessity of conflict and stated that much of the points provided supported some form of a nationally institutionalized racial superiority theory. Political theorist Padak Nyades called the book "a true flight of fantasy for a man entirely blinded by the idea that state enforced racism, national hatred, and the dissolution of a democratic government could just perfectly fix all the problems that exist in this world. These are not the writings of a man thinking straight, this is a work done by a child angry at a just society". Others continued to argue on Drakats theory of conflict, many books being created opposing the theory and claiming it as an entirely incorrect way to perceive society. The most controversial of these sections were the final sections supporting an authoritative figure to take power. While some agreed to some or all parts of the first chapters, seeing the need for national conflict externally as a correct theory. Many members of political theory circles disagreed with the removal of a democratic system and blamed it on Drakats exposure to "a joke of a democratic system that is more authoritarian then the monarchs of before!", they stated that a solid democratic platform can work as good as the best monarchs that had ruled the nation, but still needed the time to change from its autocratic roots. Due to the mixed opinions surrounding the book, members of the Gemurtrak Education Board put to a vote among their board of political philosophers to determine whether the book, and future publications of Drakat, should both remain publicly available and permitted for use in the curriculum. The vote resulted in a 57/43 split favoring the book to stay available.

Publication history
Many of the early chapters of the book were written while Drakat was in prison and were later revised and included alongside his other writings in 1925. the first chapter was published in late 1924 with New Age Theories, an academic journal known for it's political science publications. The issue became sold out in many places and led many to purchase the complete book following it's release in early 1925. Several additional versions have been published over the years up until Drakats death in 1955. Later publications included a total of 3 new chapters, multiple revisions of formerly incorrect information, and an entire appendix defending his book against the controversy behind it. He would later argue these claims in full in his next book.

The book also proved popular in the international scene, especially in conservative intellectual circles within universities. Tashrak Khulwatin, a member of the Khulwatin Circle located in Haksarad, was particularly fond of Mown's writing and was heavily influenced by his works. Khulwatin's treatise, The New Man, directly discusses, supports, and expands on Mown's work in an effort to improve the theories appeal to members of the Haksarad community. The book is regarded as the successor and spiritual squeal of Matter of the State, even obtaining public endorsement from Mown following his reading of it.