Men Must Be Controlled
The great paradox of American politics is that the grand experiment in freedom has resulted in more tyranny than the traditional monarchies and theocracies of yore could fathom in their darkest fever dreams. This “free society” is drowning in far more red tape than Hitler’s fascist regime. Our police state has become far more pervasive and invasive than Mussolini’s fascist regime. Our prison complex rivals North Korea‘s and even our public schools commonly feature armed guards, metal detectors, and elaborate electronic surveillance systems.
Depressive realism dictates that men must be controlled. One way or another, our impulses must be regulated. There are three cardinal means of regulating human behavior: indoctrination, social influence, and direct force. In American society, a broad generational decline in inculcation of moral codes and the steady disintegration of ethnic, social, and communal ties entail that the third and final means of control is increasingly necessary: direct force.
Sam Francis explored the phenomenon of secularism and multiculturalism leading inexorably to a totalitarian society in his writings on Anarcho-Tyranny, noting in Chronicles that,
“The late Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the dominions of the Habsburgs and the Romanoffs, among others, all presided over a kind of rainbow coalition of nations and peoples, who for the most part managed to live happily because their secret compulsions to spill each other`s blood was restrained by the overwhelming power of the despots and dynasties who ruled them.
“Political freedom relies on a shared political culture as much as on the oppositions and balances that social differentiation creates, and when the common culture disintegrates under the impact of mass migrations, only institutionalized force can hold the regime together.”
When our neighbors and peers are rank strangers, when we’re all bowling alone, we no longer fear losing “face”. We slip into sociopathic thinking and behavioral patterns. There’s no fear of God, no childhood indoctrination in a (coherent) moral system–albeit religious or secular. Prior generations were immersed in biblical lessons and fairy tales, then surrounded by people who gave a damn about their behavior whom they gave a damn about in return. A libertarian political structure with lax enforcement was only natural, as most of the daily enforcement of the social order was internalized.
Working from within this framework, I believe arguing over whether our society should be more “libertarian” or “totalitarian” is pointless. Men will be controlled; it’s merely a matter of balancing how much of that control is ethical, social, or forcible. Americans all agree that our police state solution is unfortunate, yet our collective ignorance and neglect of the other means of controlling the behavior of men guarantees that the anarcho-tyranny will only increase as our society becomes more morally decadent and socially diverse.
Ethnarchy: A Post-Ideological Ideal
Ethnarchism begins with an inversion of contemporary political thinking, which typically asks how people in power should manage their minions. Instead, we should be asking who we as minions entrust with political power. It’s less abstraction-oriented than people-oriented, abandoning the fixation on abstract systems which has primarily informed Western post-Enlightenment politics. A cursory review of the past several decades of politicians’ stated political systems and their political results is sufficient to sharply demote (if not completely ignore) a politician’s ideology in favor of his identity.
Everybody else is already doing this. America’s Black community turns to proven community leaders like Al Sharpton and Barack Obama, uniting behind these men in a mobilized political bloc. America’s nominally Catholic Latin American immigrant community is strongly opposed to the homosexual agenda, abortion, and a range of other ideological positions of the Democratic Party, but identity consistently trumps ideology for them. They unite behind their community leaders, with little if any consideration for the abstractions espoused by those leaders.
In a diverse society, identity necessarily trumps ideology, and the White American failure to perceive and react to that uncomfortable reality is partially a product of our abstraction-oriented nature, and partially due to our mass delusion of ongoing social and political dominance. We vote as if our Christian and European socio-political context is not only dominant, but unchallenged. We vote as if politics were a grand battle of ideas rather than a grand battle of identity blocs.
This confusion is typified in Glenn Beck’s tortured response to this year’s Fourth of July ceremonies,
The reason why you’re feeling these things is because nothing is authentic. You don’t know what the flag even stands for. Because you’re questioning, ‘are we good?’”
“Is America good?” Beck continued. “Because we used to think we knew it was great. It was great, because we were good. Now, we’re not sure.
It’s a step forward for Beck to question the roots of his patriotism, but he hasn’t dug deep enough. To ask “Are we good?”, there must be a valid “we”. Glenn Beck and the rest of White America still imagine that “America” remains synonymous with a tangible collection of people with something in common. They can’t and won’t answer the question of identity, because to do so would be to unmask this bizarre bazaar for the gaggle of alienated individuals and insular identity groups that it is. “We” have no common religious, ethical, or political (or even spoken) language. There is no “we”.
Even if you care more about abstractions than identity, the immutable laws of nature and power demand that one accounts for identity and empowerment of one’s identity before one can be positioned to dictate an ideology. Black Americans can have a constructive conversation about what “they” should do, but only because they set aside their differences and voted and worked with one united voice to install one of their own in a position of power.
Identifying an Ethnarch
One can’t merely rally behind a leader of White Americans, as doing so would entail rallying behind a Mitt Romney or (quelle horreur) a Glenn Beck. These men are ideologues, systems-oriented politicians promoting “ideas”. What we need are men who promote their fellow men. Barack Obama selflessly dedicated himself to Chicago’s inner-city Blacks, despite having all the access he could ask for to wealthier and whiter circles. Al Sharpton loves and fights for his people in a singular manner we can barely comprehend.
It can be–and assuredly will be–argued that Al Sharpton takes his ethnic advocacy to immoral and ridiculous extremes. I would imagine and hope that our own advocates, whenever and from wherever they emerge, would go about it in a different manner. But Sharpton, Obama, Holder, and the rest of our competitors are waging a battle for their extended family of kindred. They’re imminently more noble than White American “tea partiers” who are not only united by a mere abstract ideology, but are motivated by the abstract ideology of Ayn Rand’s godless individualist greed.
The leader needn’t be a formal politician. The Greek ethnarchs under the Ottoman Empire were Orthodox bishops with no formal political power. Al Sharpton wields more power and influence than any congressman, without being bothered to campaign for an actual public office. Part of the elegance of ethnarchism is that it’s agnostic about the precise mechanisms of power. Whether we live under an empire, a monarchy, a republic, or an anarchist dystopia, uniting behind the men who’ve proven themselves as stewards of and fighters for our community remains constant.
Arguing over whether “Westphalian Nationalism” is an Enlightenment device or whether some sort of overarching Imperium or international body is necessary or appropriate is pointless. Global politics are determined by military technologies and resource monopolies, and we’re largely fated to ride the tiger in terms of how power manifests from the top-down. But we can begin changing how power works from the bottom-up, becoming capable of influencing how those predetermined power structures engage with our community. Embracing ethnarchism, the anti-ideological ideology, is the first step toward manifesting a future that “we” are empowered to shape.